alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §640d–6. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 93–531, §7, Dec. 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 1715, which provided for joint ownership and management of coal, oil, gas and other minerals within or underlying partitioned lands and division between the tribes of proceeds therefrom, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
Add at the end of Article 8(a):

The Contracting Officer shall adjust the amount of Project Water for which payment is required to the extent of any reduction in diversions of Project Water made in accordance with the water conservation provisions of Article 29(e).  

Add to Article 29:

(e)In order to provide incentives for water conservation, the Contractor may reduce the amount of Project Water for which payment is required under Article 8(a) in accordance with the provisions of this Article 29(e).

(1)On or before February 15 of any Water Year, the Contractor may file with Reclamation a Notice of Reduction in Project Water Use, which shall specify the maximum quantity of Project Water to be diverted by the Contractor for that Water Year.  The Notice of Reduction in Project Water Use shall specify the maximum quantity of Project Water to be diverted by the Contractor for each month that Project Water is available under this Settlement Contract.

(2)If the Contractor files with Reclamation a Notice of Reduction in Project Water Use in accordance with subparagraph (1), the Contractor shall not divert Project Water in excess of the monthly quantities set forth in the Notice of Reduction in Project Water Use.  If the Contractor’s diversions of Project Water exceed the monthly quantities set forth in the Notice of Reduction in Project Water Use, the Contractor shall pay to Reclamation a penalty assessment in the amount of $___ per acre-foot of Project Water diverted in excess of the quantities set forth in the Notice.

(3)To the extent that the total quantity of Project Water to be diverted by the Contractor, as specified in the Notice of Reduction in Project Water Use, falls below seventy-five percent of the amount shown as Project Water in Exhibit A, the Contractor’s payment obligation under Article 8(a)(1) shall be reduced to the maximum quantity of Project Water to be diverted by the Contractor as specified in the Notice.  

PAGE
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 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 GlobeTrac Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John daCosta, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  (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 results of operations of the Company.
   /s/ John daCosta
 John daCosta
 Chief Executive Officer
 March 29, 2010
### §398d. Changes in boundaries of Executive order reservations

Changes in the boundaries of reservations created by Executive order, proclamation, or otherwise for the use and occupation of Indians shall not be made except by Act of Congress.

(Mar. 3, 1927, ch. 299, §4, 44 Stat. 1347; Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §704(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2792.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–579 struck out proviso relating to nonapplicability of provisions to temporary withdrawals by Secretary of the Interior.

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

#### Effective Date of 1976 Amendment

Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §704(a), Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2792, provided that the amendment made by that section is effective on and after Oct. 21, 1976.

#### Savings Provision

Amendment by Pub. L. 94–579 not to be construed as terminating any valid lease, permit, patent, etc., existing on Oct. 21, 1976, see Savings Provision note set out under section 1701 of Title 43, Public Lands.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of Resource Advisory Committee meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393) the Sierra National Forest's Resource Advisory Committee for Madera County will meet on Monday, February 16, 2004. The Madera Resource Advisory Committee will meet at the Yosemite Bank, Oakhurst, CA. The purpose of the meeting is: Review RAC process for accepting/reviewing proposals, review progress of FY 2002 accounting, monitoring and evaluation, Arrowhead presentation, and review Sierra Business Council book.

# DATES:

The Madera Resource Advisory Committee meeting will be held Monday, February 16, 2004. The meeting will be held from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.

# ADDRESSES:

The Madera County RAC meeting will be held at the Yosemite Bank, 40061 Highway 40, Oakhurst, CA 93643.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Dave Martin, U.S.D.A., Sierra National Forest, Bass Lake Ranger District, 57003 Road 225, North Fork, CA 93643; (559) 877-2218 ext. 3100; e-mail:                         *dmartin05@fs.fed.us.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Review RAC process for accepting/reviewing proposals, (2) review progress of FY 2002 accounting, (3) monitoring and evaluation, (4) Arrowhead presentation, and (5) review of Sierra Business Council book. Public input opportunity will be provided and individuals will have the opportunity to address the Committee at that time.

Dated: January 28, 2004.

David W. Martin,

District Ranger.

[FR Doc. 04-2244  Filed 2-3-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
#### Oscar Diem et al. v. Donald Adams, an Infant, by Harry A. Adams, His Guardian ad Litem.

Present—Martin, P. J., Untermyer, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
#### § 3515.27 Will BLM attach any special provisions to the exchange lease?

Yes, the lease terms will contain a statement that you quitclaim and relinquish any right or interest in your preference right lease application or lease exchanged.
Appendix E – Detailed List of Project Activities by Unit

Appendix E - Detailed List of Project Activities by Unit for the 

Proposed Action

Unit

Total 

Stand 

Acres

Age

Total 

RR1

Acres

Thin 

Acres

RR1 

Thin

Gap 

Acres

DTR 

Acres Skips

Skips 

in 

RR1

Net 

MBF 

for 

Unit

Net 

MBF 

per 

Harvest 

Acre

Initial 

CC2,3

Post 

CC2,3

Post 

CC2,3 

in 

RR1

Post 

trees 

per 

acre3

20 58 51 18 31 10 4 2 3 8 1,183 25 79 46 46 51

30 12 46 0 10 0 0 2 0 0 295 25 80 49 49 47

40 14 40 2 12 2 0 0 0 0 60 4 88 82 82 54

50 115 55 9 92 8 9 3 2 1 1,380 12 51 34 40 43

60 89 44 23 47 20 8 2 9 3 743 10 65 51 51 56

70 2 54 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 4 46 40 40 40

80 54 42 39 12 14 2 1 0 25 505 17 73 46 46 49

90 84 49 72 7 42 3 2 0 30 845 16 76 57 57 70

100 7 53 3 3 1 0 1 0 2 80 16 58 40 40 54

110 4 49 3 1 2 0 0 0 1 20 7 70 55 55 46

120 19 54 5 13 3 1 0 0 2 91 5 63 57 57 56

130 10 53 2 7 1 0 1 0 1 141 16 68 43 43 46

140 6 53 1 4 0 0 1 0 1 77 15 71 51 51 53

150 30 46 6 23 5 0 1 0 1 793 27 87 47 47 65

151 4 51 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 42 14 77 61 61 54

160 19 44 5 13 4 0 1 0 1 183 10 67 40 40 62

170 15 46 7 6 3 1 1 0 4 97 9 76 57 57 61

180 17 77 9 4 2 2 2 0 7 525 52 72 40 40 53

190 33 42 1 24 1 5 3 0 0 351 11 64 40 40 75

220 38 96 1 19 0 5 2 11 1 446 17 46 27 46 40

Totals 630 -- 209 331 119 40 25 25 90 7,861 15 -- -- -- --

1

RR – Riparian Reserve

2

CC – Canopy Cover

3

Based on trees seven inch diameter breast height and greater.
#### In the Matter of Thomas F. Galvin, an Attorney.

Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.; Glennon, J., taking no part.
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 8:19 AM

To: 'eric@aviationunmanned.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov'

Subject: Petition for Exemption: Aviation Unmanned (FAA-2014-0895)

May 19, 2015 

Mr. Eric Fay 

Aviation Unmanned 

4125 Centurion Way, Suite 100 

Addison, TX 75001 

Dear Mr. Fay: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2014-0895). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition. 

 Describe the following for Vanguard Industries, LLC’s ShadowHawk UAS: 

o Maximum takeoff weight 

o Fuel capacity 

o Transmission oil tank capacity 

o Training curriculum 

docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or 

electronically via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we 

must receive the information described above by June 2, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will 

close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

Nia Daniels 

Program Analyst 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
### §605. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Aug. 9, 1946, ch. 933, §5, 60 Stat. 969, which related to expulsion of members, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsFrequency domain analysis of the random loading of cracked panelsThe primary effort concerned the development of analytical methods for the accurate prediction of the effect of random loading on a panel with a crack. Of particular concern was the influence of frequency on the stress intensity factor behavior. Many modern structures, such as those found in advanced aircraft, are lightweight and susceptible to critical vibrations, and consequently dynamic response plays a very important role in their analysis. The presence of flaws and cracks can have catastrophic consequences. The stress intensity factor, K, emerges as a very significant parameter that characterizes the crack behavior. In analyzing the dynamic response of panels that contain cracks, the finite element method is used, but because this type of problem is inherently computationally intensive, a number of ways of calculating K more efficiently are explored.Document ID19940031467Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsDoyle, James F.*(Purdue Univ. West Lafayette, IN, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJune 16, 1994Subject CategoryStructural MechanicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:196021NASA-CR-196021Accession Number94N35974Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG1-1173Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19940031467.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
§ 4.1295 Awards. An award under these sections may include— ( a ) All costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert witness fees, reasonably incurred as a result of initiation and/or participation in a proceeding under the Act; and
( b ) All costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert witness fees, reasonably incurred in seeking the award in OHA.
#### William G. REINKE, Jr., Plaintiff, v. WALWORTH COUNTY SHERIFF, Lt. Werner Vogli and Sgt. Donald Ketchpaw, Defendants.

Misc. No. 105.

United States District Court E. D. Wisconsin.

April 2, 1968.

ORDER

MYRON L. GORDON, District Judge.

Plaintiff seeks permission to proceed in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that the defendants deprived him of his constitutional rights by subjecting him to an illegal search and seizure; by denying him the assistance of counsel; and by falsely imprisoning him. The defendants are the Walworth county sheriff and three of his deputies. For these alleged constitutional deprivations, the plaintiff seeks damages ■ in the sum of $59,363.50. The damages cover a period from July, 1964 to March, 1966 and are for loss of wages plus punitive damages.

On January 15, 1967, this court denied plaintiff permission to file in forma pauperis a similar action against the identical defendants. That order stated that the plaintiff failed to show any causal relationship between his charges and his claimed injuries. The plaintiff is now attempting to cure the defects of his previous complaint.

Complaints under the civil rights act are to be accorded liberal construction. Birnbaum v. Trussell, 347 F.2d 86 (2nd Cir. 1965); Eaton v. Bibb, 217 F.2d 446 (7th Cir. 1955). Notwithstanding, the plaintiff must allege specific facts which indicate that he has a claim upon which relief could be granted. It is the opinion of the court that the plaintiff has not met this requirement; he has supplemented his previous complaint with conclusory statements only.

*378The plaintiff alleges that after he was arrested, he made several requests to call an attorney, all of which were denied. He states that because he did not have the assistance of counsel, certain information was elicited from him which led to the placing of six new charges against him. The plaintiff, however, fails to relate this charge of denial of assistance of counsel to his alleged injury. He does not inform the court whether he was tried and convicted on all or part of these charges; in fact, the plaintiff has not told the court for what he was adjudged guilty.

Similar gaps surround his claims that there was an illegal search and a false imprisonment. There is an impressive citation of case law, but even upon a liberal construction, the relationship between the alleged wrongs and alleged injury is not apparent.

The plaintiff has not shown the court that he has any claim upon which relief might be granted. Pursuant to the discretion granted the court by 28 U.S.C. § 1915, plaintiff’s request to file his action in forma pauperis is hereby denied.
#### In the Matter of the Application of Morris Stark for Reinstatement as an Attorney.

Present — Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ.
#### Anthony *v.*Cody.

November 16, 1910.

Complaint. Before Judge Gilbert. Marion superior court. November 15, 1909.

W. *B. Short,*for plaintiff in error. *G. D. King,*contra.

Evans, P. J.

The maker of a promissory note, which recites that its consideration is the purchase-price of described personal property, but docs not purport to integrate the sale contract, may, in defense to a suit on the note by the seller, plead as failure of consideration a breach of a contemporaneous oral warranty. *Pryor*v. *Ludden & Bates Southern Music House,*134 *Ga.*288 (67 S. E. 654).

(cr) It was error to strike the plea on general demurrer.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur..*
§ 4.1181 Who may file. ( a ) An application for review of an order of cessation may be filed under this section, whenever temporary relief has not been granted under section 525(c) or section 526(c) of the act, by— ( 1 ) A permittee who has been issued an order of cessation under section 521(a)(2) or section 521(a)(3) of the act; or
( 2 ) Any person having an interest which is or may be adversely affected by the issuance of an order of cessation under section 521(a)(2) or section 521(a)(3) of the act.
( b ) A permittee or any person having an interest which is or may be adversely affected by a section 521(a)(2) or section 521(a)(3) order of cessation waives his right to expedited review upon being granted temporary relief pursuant to section 525(c) or section 526(c) of the act.
(No. 722

Claimant awarded $2,514.20.)

#### Sunbeam Chemical Company, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 26,*1927.

Franchise *tax*— when *refund will be made.*This case is similar to that of *Altorfer Bros.*v. *State,*and the decision of the court there announced governs this claim.

Blum, Blum & Delaney and Paul O’Donnell, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; David J. Kadyk, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim for a refund of excess franchise taxes paid • to the State of Illinois in the years 1921 and 1922. The excess amount is $2,514.20. The only question involved in this case is the question whether this money was paid under duress and compulsion or whether it was paid voluntarily. . The facts and law on this point are exactly identical with those, in the Altorfer Brothers case, in the opinion in which case we fully discussed this subject. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this claimant is entitled to a refund of $2,514.20, and hereby award that sum.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Anto nio, Texas

April 13, 2018

No. 04

- 17

- 00438

- CR

Arthur WHITLEY

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR8583

The Honorable Laura Lee Parker, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The Appellant ’ s Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief is GRANTED. The

reply brief is due on April 19, 2018.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on thi s 13th day of April, 2018

.

___________________________________ K eith E. H ottle

Clerk of Court
### PART III—ENFORCEMENT

Sec.
9707.
Failure to pay premium.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                 5
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                              899,531
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                        10,734
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  1,301,462
<PP&E>                              938,204
<DEPRECIATION>                      500,967
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    2,873,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             1,493,851
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               2
<COMMON>                             20,711
<OTHER-SE>                        1,209,905
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      2,873,500
<SALES>                              25,397
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     25,397
<CGS>                                12,280
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        12,280
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  2,453,688
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  680,874
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (3,114,839)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (3,114,839)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                     (3,114,839)
<EPS-BASIC>                         (2.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (2.26)

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10528 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. RONALD LEE WILLIAMS, JR Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:06-CR-194-ALL Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appeali ng the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Ronald Lee Williams, Jr. presents arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United Statesv. Brown, 920 F.2d 1212, 1216-17 (5th Ci r. 1991), which held that a district court may order a term of imprisonment to run consecutively with an unimposed state sentence. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 5, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-10528

2
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 1903** 

ANTHONY OLIVER , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. GLEAMNS HUMAN RESOURCE COMMISSION INC. , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United S tates District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson
. J. Michelle Childs , District Judge. ( 8:10

- cv - 01191

- JMC )

Submitted : January 30, 2012 Decided: February 6, 2012

Before KING, KEENAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un pub lished per curiam opinion
. Anthony Oliver, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Edgar McDonald, III, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURI AM: Anthony Oliver appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellee on Oliver’s claims of discrimination . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible err or. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Oliver v. Gleamns Human Resource Comm’n, Inc. , No. 8:10

- cv - 01191

- JMC (D.S.C. July 26, 2011) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately p resented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 3601.60 Cancellation.
#### § 4.452 Proceedings before the administrative law judge.
#### § 3905.10 Oil shale lease exchanges.

To facilitate the recovery of oil shale, the BLM may consider land exchanges where appropriate and feasible to consolidate land ownership and mineral interest into manageable areas. Exchanges are covered under part 2200 of this chapter.
Docket Number FAA

- 2013

- 0632