alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 30.224 May a judge compel a witness to appear and testify at a hearing or deposition? ( a ) The judge can issue a subpoena for a witness to appear and testify at a hearing or deposition and to bring documents or other material to the hearing or deposition. ( 1 ) You may request that the judge issue a subpoena for the appearance of a witness to testify. The request must state the name, address, and telephone number or other means of contacting the witness, and the reason for the request. The request must be timely. The requesting party must mail the request to all other interested parties and to the witness at the time of filing.
( 2 ) The request must specify the documents or other material sought for production under the subpoena.
( 3 ) The judge will grant or deny the request in writing and mail copies of the order to all the interested parties and the witness.
( 4 ) A person subpoenaed may seek to avoid a subpoena by filing a motion to quash with the judge and sending copies to the interested parties.
( b ) Anyone whose legal residence is more than 100 miles from the hearing location may ask the judge to excuse his or her attendance under subpoena. The judge will inform the interested parties in writing of the request and the judge's decision on the request in writing in a timely manner.
( c ) A witness who is subpoenaed to a hearing under this section is entitled to the fees and allowances provided by law for a witness in the courts of the United States (see 28 U.S.C. 1821).
( d ) If a subpoenaed person fails or refuses to appear at a hearing or to testify, the judge may file a petition in United States District Court for issuance of an order requiring the subpoenaed person to appear and testify.
#### § 2933.24 When can I get a refund of Recreation Use Permit fees?

If we close the fee site for administrative or emergency reasons, we will refund the unused portion of your permit fee upon request.
#### § 35.42 Judicial review.

Section 3805 of title 31, U.S. Code, authorizes judicial review by an appropriate U.S. District Court of a final decision of the Secretary imposing penalties or assessment under this part and specifies the procedures for such review.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4676 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide an additional tool to 

prevent certain frauds against veterans, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 2, 2016 

Mr. ROONEY of Florida (for himself and Mr. DEUTCH) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide an additional tool to prevent certain frauds against veterans, 

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 ‘‘Preventing Crimes 

5 Against Veterans Act of 2016’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL TOOL TO PREVENT CERTAIN FRAUDS 

7 AGAINST VETERANS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 47 of title 18, United 

9 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol10 lowing: 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4676 IH

1 ‘‘§ 1041. Frauds regarding veterans’ benefits. 

2 ‘‘(a) Whoever knowingly engages in any scheme or 

3 artifice to defraud a veteran of veterans’ benefits, or in 

4 connection with obtaining veteran’s benefits for that vet5 eran, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more 

6 than five years, or both. 

7 ‘‘(b) In this section— 

8 ‘‘(1) the term ‘veteran’ has the meaning given 

9 that term in section 101 of title 38; and 

10 ‘‘(2) the term ‘veterans’ benefits’ means any 

11 benefit provided by Federal law for a veteran.’’. 

12 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

13 at the beginning of chapter 47 of title 18, United States 

14 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 

15 item: 

‘‘1041. Frauds regarding veterans’ benefits.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### § 901.38 Supplemental charges.

If it appears to the Executive Director that the respondent in his/her answer falsely and in bad faith denies a material allegation of fact in the complaint or states that the respondent has no knowledge sufficient to form a belief when he/she in fact possesses such knowledge, or if it appears that the respondent has knowingly introduced false testimony during proceedings for suspension or termination of his/her enrollment, the Executive Director may file supplemental charges against the respondent. Such supplemental charges may be tried with other charges in the case, provided the respondent is given due notice thereof and is afforded an opportunity to prepare a defense thereto.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4830 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4830

  To reaffirm actions taken by the Secretary of the Interior for the 
           benefit of Indian Tribes, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 13, 2022

 Mr. Moran (for himself and Mr. Tester) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To reaffirm actions taken by the Secretary of the Interior for the 
           benefit of Indian Tribes, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. RATIFICATION AND CONFIRMATION OF ACTIONS.

    Any action taken by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the 
Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly known as the ``Indian Reorganization 
Act'') (48 Stat. 984, chapter 576; 25 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.), for any 
Indian Tribe that was federally recognized on the date of the action is 
ratified and confirmed, to the extent such action is subjected to 
challenge based on whether the Indian Tribe was federally recognized or 
under Federal jurisdiction on June 18, 1934, as if the action had, by 
prior Act of Congress, been specifically authorized and directed.
                                 <all>
```
### **CHAPTER 46—GOLDEN PARACHUTE PAYMENTS**

Sec.
4999.
Golden parachute payments.
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 Certification Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 7241,
As Adopted Pursuant To
Section 302 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, John H. Elms, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SpectraLink
Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this 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 report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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:  (a)
    
    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 report is being prepared;(b)
    
    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(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses 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(b)
    
    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. August 9, 2004 /s/  JOHN H. ELMSJohn H. ElmsBy: President and Chief Executive Officer
§ 3272.14 How do I get a permit to build or test my facility? ( a ) Before building or testing a utilization facility, you must submit to BLM a: ( 1 ) Utilization plan;
( 2 ) Completed and signed facility construction permit; and
( 3 ) Completed and signed site license. (See subpart 3273.)
( b ) Do not start building or testing your utilization facility until we have approved both your facility construction permit and your site license.
( c ) After our review, we will notify you whether we have approved or denied your permit, as well as of any conditions we require for conducting operations.
Third Department,

June, 1943.

(June 30, 1943.)

#### Stephen Kostka, Respondent, v. George E. Stack, Appellant.

*884Bliss, Heffernan and Schenck, JJ., concur; Hill, P. J., dissents in an opinion in which Crapser, J., concurs; Crapser, J., dissents in a further memorandum.

Hill, P. J.

(dissenting). Appeal from a judgment for personal injuries claimed to have been received by plaintiff through the negligence of defendant’s foreman. Plaintiff and a force of men were engaged in picking apples, using a ladder when necessary. The court charged without exception, “It was a good substantial ladder, one commonly used in that business, and the plaintiff volunteered to go up and in the exercise of ordinary care no one would have an accident.” Plaintiff’s evidence is to the effect that when he started to ascend the ladder a coemployee Sundloff was holding and steadying it. That when he had approached the top and was reaching for apples, the thrust of his body caused the ladder to tip and he was thrown to the ground and injured; also that when he was ascending the ladder he heard Briggs, who was a foreman, call to Sundloff, who left the ladder and engaged in other work. The complaint was framed upon the theory that plaintiff did not have a safe place to work and that the ladder was defective. The court charged without exception, “ No negligence is established and none claimed by virtue of the fact that this ladder was an imperfect or insecure piece of apparatus for use.” The case was submitted to the jury on the theory that the negligence of Briggs was imputable to defendant, and if he called Sundloff when reasonable care required the latter to continue to support the ladder, plaintiff could recover.

If defendant provided sufficient competent workmen, he was under no obligation to direct their conduct in connection with details of the work, and this although he had committed the management of the work generally to a common employee of superior grade. Unwise directions as to details of the common work upon which several men are employed resulting in an inj,ury through the carelessness of the one in charge, *“*whether he be the foreman or not ” are not to be imputed to the employer. *(Dair*v. *N. Y. & P. R. Steamship Co.,*204 N. Y. 341, 346.)

The complaint should be dismissed. *(Madigan*v. *Oceanic Steam Nav. Co.,*178 N. Y. 242; *Vogel*v. *American Bridge Co.,*180 N. Y. 373; *Yaconi*v. *Brady & Gioe, Inc.,*246 N. Y. 300; *Lodico*v. *Brooks,*254 App. Div. 572.)

Crapser, J.

(dissenting). I dissent and vote to reverse the order and judgment appealed from and to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiff was permitted to recover on a cause of action not alleged in the complaint. No amendment was made to conform the complaint to the proof. This motion was made at the end of the plaintiff’s case and again at the end of the whole case. When the motion was made at the end of all the evidence decision was reserved and an exception was taken. As the ease stood then the defendant’s motion should have been granted and failure to grant it and submit it to the jury over the exception of the defendant was error.
Table 24

U.S. Department of Interior - Bureau of Reclamation

Preliminary Data Subject to Change Central Valley Operations Office

San Joaquin and Mendota Pool

Monthly Deliveries in AF 2018

Water User Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total

Fresno Slough WD 56 350 108 250 656 695 480 162 51 0 109 2 2,919

Tranquility Public Utilities District 

(TPUD) (formerly Hughes, Melvin)

0 12 16 0 1 29 27 23 0 0 0 0 108

James ID 2,998 6,746 0 277 3,280 6,992 7,133 2,739 1,385 0 0 0 31,550

Meyers (SLWD) 714 352 0 1,014 127 136 113 136 78 1,351 45 0 4,066

Dudley & Indart (formerly Coelho-GardnerHanson)

104 113 142 317 338 522 471 678 403 312 232 0 3,632

Mid-Valley WD (no contract)(Kings River) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Reclamation District #1606 8 6 5 37 88 108 71 47 12 0 0 0 382

Terra Linda Farms (Coelho Family Trust) 286 465 131 382 1,083 1,320 1,480 772 510 301 252 0 6,982

Tranquility ID 336 2,259 474 1,612 2,197 4,305 4,375 2,932 1,399 929 427 125 21,370

Westlands WD (Lateral 6 & 7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lempesis V.L. (Wilson, JW) 0 4 14 54 96 122 83 28 42 39 13 3 498

Laguna WD (via CCID) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

San Luis WD (via CCID) 0 15 51 8 13 26 37 64 75 5 5 0 299

Del Puerto WD (via CCID) 0 0 29 27 0 0 15 0 14 19 25 5 134

Total 4,502 10,322 970 3,978 7,879 14,255 14,285 7,581 3,969 2,956 1,108 135 71,940

Exchange Contractors

Central California ID (CCID) 2,137 31,197 12,052 20,719 51,477 64,485 78,296 63,720 33,400 12,107 17,251 4,320 391,161

Columbia Canal Co 0 2,622 1,155 3,730 7,051 7,556 7,938 5,412 6,240 8,609 5,191 0 55,504

Firebaugh Canal WD 0 403 523 989 3,051 5,555 8,053 6,051 2,055 1,307 822 1,731 30,540

San Luis Canal Co (SLCC) 1,000 2,788 8,545 6,283 13,514 25,217 28,534 20,433 5,360 3,890 4,637 0 120,201

Total 3,137 37,010 22,275 31,721 75,093 102,813 122,821 95,616 47,055 25,913 27,901 6,051 597,406

Refuges

Grasslands WD (via CCID & SLCC ) 1,792 2,207 88 332 4,497 1,923 575 2,155 16,506 19,760 3,998 1,007 54,840

China Island Unit (CDFG) (via CCID) 152 236 118 90 126 95 215 7 130 366 211 580 2,326

Los Banos WMA (CDFG) (via CCID & SLCC) 1,371 1,079 563 271 361 423 283 1,084 2,048 2,599 1,353 0 11,435

Mendota Wildlife Area (CDFG) 2,091 1,565 395 433 840 1,148 2,177 1,835 3,824 4,091 2,155 2,594 23,148

Salt Slough Unit (CDFG) (via CCID) 233 348 172 285 89 81 0 369 653 708 373 500 3,811

Freitas Unit (USFWS) (via CCID) 181 313 95 114 265 9 0 0 362 966 445 694 3,444

Kesterson (USFWS) (via CCID) 181 282 93 63 322 0 0 95 789 1,105 396 617 3,943

San Luis NWR (USFWS) (via SLCC) 8,671 14,252 3,085 2,386 3,717 2,573 385 0 2,000 5,590 6,097 0 48,756

0

Total 14,672 20,282 4,609 3,974 10,217 6,252 3,635 5,545 26,312 35,185 15,028 5,992 151,703

Total Deliveries 22,311 67,614 27,854 39,673 93,189 123,320 140,741 108,742 77,336 64,054 44,037 12,178 821,049

* Delivery data is based on District turn-out readings and may include water in addition to water service contract deliveries.
#### § 2916.2-2 Assignments and subleases.

A proposed assignment on a lease, in whole or in part, or a sublease, must be filed in duplicate with the proper office within 90 days from the date of its execution; must contain all of the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties thereto; and must be supported by a statement that the assignee or sublessee agrees to be bound by the provisions of the lease. The assignee or sublessee must submit with the assignment or sublease the information or statements required by § 2916.2-1(b) (1), (2), (4), (5), (10), and (11). No assignment or sublease will be recognized unless and until approved by the authorizing officer.

(Sec. 2, 44 Stat. 822; 48 U.S.C. 361)
#### § 3214.17 Where must I submit my bond?

File personal or corporate surety bonds and statewide bonds in the BLM State Office that oversees your lease or operations. You may file nationwide bonds in any BLM State Office. File bond riders in the BLM State Office where your underlying bond is located. For personal or corporate surety bonds, file one originally-signed copy of the bond.
### PART III—SPECIAL RULES WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN CASH

Sec.
6867.
Presumptions where owner of large amount of cash is not identified.
### §291. Removal of Government property at schools

Where there is Government property on hand at any of the Indian reservations or schools not required for the use or benefit of the Indians of reservations or said schools, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to move such property to other Indian reservations or schools where it may be required.

(Mar. 1, 1907, ch. 2285, 34 Stat. 1016.)
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsActive damping application to the shuttle RMSControl Structure Interaction (CSI) is a relatively new technology developed over the last 10 to 15 years for application to large flexible space vehicles. The central issue is recognition that high performance control systems necessary for good spacecraft performance may adversely interact with the dynamics of the spacecraft structures, a problem increasingly aggravated by the large size and reduced stiffness of modern spacecraft structural designs. The CSI analysis and design methods were developed to avoid interactions while maintaining spacecraft performance without exceeding structural capabilities, but they remain largely unvalidated by hardware experiments or demonstrations, particularly in-space flight demonstrations. One recent proposal for a low cost flight validation of CSI technology is to demonstrate active damping augmentation of the Space Shuttle Remote Manipulator System (RMS). An analytical effort to define the potential for such an active damping augmentation demonstration to improve the structural dynamic response of the RMS following payload maneuvers is described. It is hoped that this study will lead to an actual inflight CSI test with the RMS using existing shuttle hardware to the maximum extent possible. By using the existing hardware, the flight demonstration results may eventually be of direct benefit to actual Space Shuttle RMS operations, especially during the construction of the Space Station Freedom.Document ID19910010158Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsGilbert, Michael G.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Scott, Michael A.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Kenny, Sean P.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1991Subject CategoryStructural MechanicsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-102763NAS 1.15:102763Meeting InformationMeeting: NASA/DOD CSI ConferenceLocation: Orlando, FLCountry: United StatesStart Date: November 5, 1990End Date: November 7, 1990Accession Number91N19471Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 590-14-61-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910010158.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
### §1053. Property acquired before March 1, 1913

In the case of property acquired before March 1, 1913, if the basis otherwise determined under this subtitle, adjusted (for the period before March 1, 1913) as provided in section 1016, is less than the fair market value of the property as of March 1, 1913, then the basis for determining gain shall be such fair market value. In determining the fair market value of stock in a corporation as of March 1, 1913, due regard shall be given to the fair market value of the assets of the corporation as of that date.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 311; Pub. L. 85–866, title I, §47, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1642.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1958—Pub. L. 85–866 substituted "subtitle" for "part".

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

#### Effective Date of 1958 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 85–866 applicable to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1953, and ending after Aug. 16, 1954, see section 1(c)(1) of Pub. L. 85–866, set out as a note under section 165 of this title.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 5, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 59614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22352]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[OR-030-1020-XX-028H; HAG 04-0291]


Council Meeting Notice

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Vale District.

ACTION: Conference call for the John Day/Snake Resource Advisory 
Council.

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

SUMMARY: The John Day/Snake Resource Advisory Council will have a 
conference call on November 8, 2004 at 7 p.m. Pacific Time.
    The conference call participants will discuss the Draft Forest 
Service Vegetation Treatment Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
    The entire conference call is open to the public. To participate in 
the conference call, please submit a written request to the Vale 
District Office 10 days prior to the call.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Diegan, Management Assistant/
Webmaster, Vale District Office, 100 Oregon Street, Vale, OR 97918 
(541) 473-3144, or e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#edbd888a8a94b2a984888a8c83ad829fc38f8180c38a829b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="eaba8f8d8d93b5ae838f8d8b84aa8598c4888687c48d859c">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: September 29, 2004.
Tom Dabbs,
Acting District Manager.
[FR Doc. 04-22352 Filed 10-4-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-33-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0715

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

WOLFGANG ALEXANDER LUCAS VASQUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including June 22, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 14 2020

05/14/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0715