alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 44.11 What are the definitions of terms used in this subpart? *Entitlement land* means land owned by the United States: ( 1 ) That is in the National Park System or the National Forest System, including wilderness areas, and national forest lands in northern Minnesota described in 16 U.S.C. 577d-577d-1;
( 2 ) That is administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Office of the Secretary;
( 3 ) That is dedicated to the use of the Government for water resource development projects;
( 4 ) On which there are semiactive or inactive installations, excluding industrial installations, that the Department of Army keeps for mobilization and reserve component training;
( 5 ) That is a dredge disposal area under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers;
( 6 ) That is located in the vicinity of Purgatory River Canyon and Pinon Canyon, Colorado, and was acquired by the United States after December 23, 1981, to expand the Fort Carson military installation; or
( 7 ) That is a reserve area as defined in 16 U.S.C. 715s(g)(3), which is an area of land withdrawn from the public domain and administered, either solely or primarily, by the Secretary of the Interior, through the Fish and Wildlife Service.
*Local government* means a unit of general local government, which can include any of the following: ( 1 ) A county, parish, township, borough, or city, (other than in Alaska), where the city is independent of any other unit of general local government, that: ( i ) Is within the class(es) of such political subdivision in a State that the Secretary of the Interior determines, in his or her discretion, to be the principal provider(s) of governmental services within the State; and
( ii ) Is a unit of general local government, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior on the basis of the same principles as were used by the Secretary of Commerce on January 1, 1983, for general statistical purposes;
( 2 ) Any area in Alaska that is within the boundaries of a census area used by the Secretary of Commerce in the decennial census, but that is not included within the boundaries of a governmental entity described under paragraph (1) of this definition; or
( 3 ) The Governments of the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
Payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) means Federal payments disbursed to local governments to compensate for the exemption of real estate taxes on entitlement lands within their boundaries. Section 6902 (31 U.S.C. 6902) payments means Federal payments disbursed to local governments containing entitlement lands. Section 6904 (31 U.S.C. 6904) payments means Federal payments disbursed to local governments for acquisitions or interest in lands acquired for addition to the National Park System or National Forest Wilderness Areas. Section 6905 (31 U.S.C. 6905) payments means Federal payments disbursed to local governments for lands in the Redwood National Park or Lake Tahoe Basin.
Exhibit 32.1




Certification under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hampton Roads Bankshares, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2009, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 23, 2010, as amended by Amendment No. 1 to be filed herewith (the “Report”), we, John A. B. Davies, Jr., Chief Executive Officer, and Lorelle L. Fritsch, Acting Chief Financial Officer, hereby 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 our knowledge:





(a) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(b) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ John A. B. Davies, Jr.


John A. B. Davies, Jr.


Chief Executive Officer





Date: July 12, 2010





/s/ Lorelle L. Fristch


Lorelle L. Fritsch


Acting Chief Financial Officer





Date: July 12, 2010
§ 38.3 Administration of adjusted rates of pay. ( a ) An employee is entitled to be paid the greater of— ( 1 ) The adjusted annual rate of pay; or
( 2 ) His or her rate of basic pay (including a local special salary rate, where applicable), without regard to any adjustment under this section.
( b ) An adjusted rate of pay is considered basic pay for purposes of computing: ( 1 ) Retirement deductions and benefits;
( 2 ) Life insurance premiums and benefits;
( 3 ) Premium pay;
( 4 ) Severance pay;
( c ) When an employee's official duty station is changed from a location not in an interim geographic adjustment area to a location in an interim geographic adjustment area, payment of the adjusted rate of pay begins on the effective date of the change in official duty station.
( d ) An adjusted rate of pay is paid only for those hours for which an employee is in a pay status.
( e ) An adjusted rate of pay shall be adjusted as of the effective date of any change in the applicable scheduled rate of pay.
( f ) Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, entitlement to an adjusted rate of pay under this subpart terminates on the date. ( 1 ) An employee's official duty station is no longer located in an interim geographic adjustment area;
( 2 ) An employee moves to a position not covered;
( 3 ) An employee separates from Federal service; or
( 4 ) An employee's local special salary rate exceeds his or her adjusted rate of pay.
( g ) In the event of a change in the geographic area covered by a CMSA, the effective date of a change in an employee's entitlement to an adjusted rate of pay under this subpart shall be the first day of the first pay period beginning on or after the date on which a change in the definition of a CMSA is made effective.
( h ) Payment of or an increase in, an adjusted rate of pay is not an equivalent increase in pay.
( i ) An adjusted rate of pay is included in an employee's “total remuneration,” and “straight time rate of pay,” for the purpose of computations under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended.
( j ) Termination of an adjusted rate of pay under paragraph (f) of this section is not an adverse action.
#### § 3473.1 Payments.
### §5844. Importation

No firearm shall be imported or brought into the United States or any territory under its control or jurisdiction unless the importer establishes, under regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary, that the firearm to be imported or brought in is—

(1) being imported or brought in for the use of the United States or any department, independent establishment, or agency thereof or any State or possession or any political subdivision thereof; or

(2) being imported or brought in for scientific or research purposes; or

(3) being imported or brought in solely for testing or use as a model by a registered manufacturer or solely for use as a sample by a registered importer or registered dealer;

except that, the Secretary may permit the conditional importation or bringing in of a firearm for examination and testing in connection with classifying the firearm.

(Added Pub. L. 90–618, title II, §201, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1230; amended Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 5844, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 725, related to exportation, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 90–618.

Provisions similar to those comprising this section were contained in prior section 5845, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 725, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 90–618.

#### Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–455 struck out "or his delegate" after "Secretary" wherever appearing.
§ 418.31 Conservation measures. ( a ) Specific conservation actions will be needed for the District and its members to achieve a reasonable efficiency of operation as required by this part. The District is best able to determine the particular conservation measures that meet the needs of its water users. This ensures that the measures reflect the priorities and collective judgment of the water users; and will be practical, understandable and supported. The District also has the discretion to make changes in the measures they adopt as conditions or results dictate.
( b ) The District will keep the Bureau informed of the measures they expect to utilize during each year. This will enable the Bureau to stay apprised of any helpful information that may, in turn, help the Bureau assist other irrigation districts. The Bureau will work cooperatively in support of the District's selection of measures and methods of implementation.
#### Union Free School District No. 5 of the Towns of North Hempstead and Hempstead, Nassau County, Respondent, v. Pilgrim Estates, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Present—Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, "Johnston and Taylor, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7155

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM C. PETTIS, a/k/a Bobby,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, 

District Judge. (5:02-cr-30041-SGW-4; 5:11-cv-80353-SGW)

Submitted: December 20, 2011 Decided: December 23, 2011

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William C. Pettis, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Barrett Hudson, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William C. Pettis seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his “motion to discontinue sentence,” 

which the court construed as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2011) motion and dismissed it on that basis. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Pettis has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 235

 232

 233

 229

 229

 229

 226

 226

 228

 225

 222

 217

 212

 213

 218

 230

 238

 251

 245

 263

 254

 258

 260

 266

 267

 266

 266

 277

 280

 288

 285

 222

 224

 222

 221

 218

 218

 218

 216

 215

 209

 207

 204

 200

 201

 203

 212

 223

 231

 236

 240

 245

 250

 251

 252

 254

 255

 259

 261

 264

 270

 277

 226

 227

 227

 225

 223

 223

 222

 220

 220

 218

 213

 208

 203

 205

 208

 218

 228

 235

 239

 244

 248

 254

 255

 257

 259

 260

 263

 267

 268

 275

 281

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

AUGUST 2012 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: November 1, 2012

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

VICTORIA CANAL ON THE MIDDLE RIVER
### §7606. Entry of premises for examination of taxable objects

#### (a) Entry during day

The Secretary may enter, in the daytime, any building or place where any articles or objects subject to tax are made, produced, or kept, so far as it may be necessary for the purpose of examining said articles or objects.

#### (b) Entry at night

When such premises are open at night, the Secretary may enter them while so open, in the performance of his official duties.

#### (c) Penalties

**For penalty for refusal to permit entry or examination, see section 7342.**

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 903; Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1834.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–455 struck out "or his delegate" after "Secretary" wherever appearing.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 20-CV-22054-DPG

SISVEL INTERNATIONAL S.A.,

3G LICENSING S.A., and SISVEL S.p.A.

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

NOETIC, INC. and SUN CUPID 

TECHNOLOGY (HK), LTD.

Defendant(s).

 /

DEFENDANT, NOETIC, INC.’S, THIRD MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

RESPOND TO COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), Defendant, NOETIC, INC., respectfully 

submits this Defendant, Noetic, Inc.’s Third Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to 

Plaintiff’s Complaint for Patent Infringement (the “Complaint”) to and including October 26, 2020. 

In support hereof, Defendant states the following: 

1. Plaintiffs filed the Complaint [ECF No. 1] on May 15, 2020.

2. Defendant, NOETIC, INC., was served with the original Summons and Complaint 

on July 14, 2020.

3. The deadline for Defendant to file a response to the Complaint was August 4, 2020. 

4. The Court entered an Order [ECF No. 12] extending the deadline to October 3, 

2020 on an unopposed Second Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint for Patent 

Infringement [ECF No 11] filed by the Defendant.

Case 1:20-cv-22054-DPG Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2020 Page 1 of 3
2

5. Ever since the initiation of the case, the parties have engaged in good faith 

negotiations to resolve the issues raised in this Complaint and various other complaints filed by 

the Plaintiffs in other jurisdictions by a global settlement agreement and are very close to a final 

settlement agreement. However, there are still some minor aspects to be considered which require 

additional time to complete by the parties. 

6. The undersigned has in good faith contacted counsel for Plaintiffs regarding this 

third request for extension of time to respond to the Complaint. Plaintiffs do not consent but will 

not oppose the motion. 

THEREFORE, Defendant, NOETIC, INC., respectfully requests the Court for an order 

extending the time to respond to the Complaint for Patent Infringement up to and including 

October 26, 2020 and award such other relief as this Court deems proper. 

Dated: September 29, 2020.

Respectfully submitted by:

The Law Office of Hongwei Shang, LLC

7350 SW 89th Street, Suite 100

Miami, FL 33156

Tel: (305) 670-5266

Fax: (305) 670-5299

Email: hshanglaw@gmail.com

 /S/Hongwei Shang__________________

Hongwei Shang, Esq.

Fla Bar No. 0037199

Attorney for Defendant Noetic, Inc.

Case 1:20-cv-22054-DPG Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2020 Page 2 of 3
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on this 

29th day of September, 2020, by ECF system to: 

Jorge Espinosa, Esq.

Jorge.Espinosa@gray-robinson.com

Francesca Russo, Esq.

francesca.russo@gray-robinson.com

Robert R. Jimenez, Esq.

Robert.Jimenez@gray-robinson.com

GRAY ROBINSON, P.A.

333 S.E. 2nd Ave., Suite 300

Miami, FL 33131

Tel: 305-416-6880

Fax: 305-416-6887

/S/Hongwei Shang_______

Hongwei Shang

Case 1:20-cv-22054-DPG Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/29/2020 Page 3 of 3
BANCO DE
GALICIA Y BUENOS AIRES S.A.


Autonomous
City of Buenos Aires, June 9, 2010





To
the





Comisión Nacional de Valores
(National Securities
Commission)








Dear
Sirs,





We are
writing to you regarding the transaction, of which you were notified on June 2,
2010 and December 27, 2009, in which Banco de Galicia y Buenos Aires S.A. will
acquire a 95% stake in the following: (i) Compañía Financiera Argentina S.A., a
corporation organized under the Argentinean laws and authorized to operate as a
financial institution, (ii) Cobranzas & Servicios S.A., a corporation
organized under the Argentinean laws and (iii) AIG Universal Processing Center
S.A., a corporation organized under Argentinean laws, for a price subject to
adjustment.  We will inform you of this price on the closing date of
said transaction, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the agreement for the
purchase and sale of the shares.





Furthermore,
we hereby inform you that on June 7, 2010, the Argentine Central Bank authorized
the above-mentioned transaction through its Resolution Number 124. Said
Resolution was served to Banco de Galicia y Buenos Aires S.A. on June 8,
2010.





We also
hereby inform you that Tarjetas Regionales S.A. has acquired the remaining 5%
stake in the corporations mentioned above.








Yours
sincerely,










Patricia
      M. Lastiry


In
      charge of


Market
      Relations
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000894546
<NAME>                        Claire Technologies, Inc.

<LEGEND>
          This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from
          Claire Technologies,  Inc. September 30, 1996 financial statements and
          is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements
[/LEGEND]

       
<S>                                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                      SEP-30-1996

<CASH>                                            4,446
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     0
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  4,446
<PP&E>                                            22,647
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (4,021)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    627,752
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             445,363
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                          8,540
<OTHER-SE>                                        173,849
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      627,752
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  0
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  638,193
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                96,908
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (1,092,918)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (638,193)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (1,092,918)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.15)
        


</TABLE>
----

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the managed entry in the EU of persons in need of international protection and the enhancement of the protection capacity of the regions of origin: ‘improving access to durable solutions’

(2005/C 231/07)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the managed entry in the EU of persons in need of international protection and the enhancement of the protection capacity of the regions of origin: ‘improving access to durable solutions’ COM (2004) 410 final;

Having regard to the decision of the European Commission of 25 August 2004 to consult it on this matter, under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to the decision of its president of 5 April 2004 to instruct the Commission for External Relations to draw up an opinion on this subject;

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 63(2)(b) thereof;

Having regard to the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, in particular Articles II-61, II-78, II-79 and III-266, III-267 and III-268;

Having regard to the Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees of 28 July 1951, supplemented by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967;

Having regard to the Presidency Conclusions on the Hague Programme: Strengthening Freedom, Security and Justice in the European Union, and in particular Specific Orientations on Asylum, Migration and Border Policy (point 1.2) and the External Dimension of Asylum and Migration (point 1.6.);

Having regard to its opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on immigration, integration and employment (COM(2003) 336 final, CdR 223/2003 fin (1));

Having regard to its opinions dealing specifically with refugee policy (CdR 90/2001 fin (2); CdR 214/2001 fin (3); CdR 93/2002 fin (4); CdR 249/2003 (5));

Having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 338/2004 rev. 1) adopted on 7 February 2005 by the Commission for External Relations (rapporteur: Mr Sértő-Radics, Mayor of Uszka municipality (HU/ELDR));

adopted the following opinion at its 59th plenary session, held on 13 and 14 April 2005 (session of 14 April).

1.   The Committee of the Regions' views

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

2.   The Committee of the Regions' recommendations

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Brussels, 14 April 2005

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB

----

(1)OJ C 109, 30.4.2004 pp. 46-49.

(2)OJ C 19, 22.1.2002 pp. 20-22.

(3)OJ C 107, 3.5.2002 pp. 85-88.

(4)OJ C 278, 14.11.2002 pp. 44-48.

(5)OJ C 23, 27.1.2004 pp. 30-32.

----
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Dr. Owl Online, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form  10-KSB  for the period ended May 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony Huang, Chief
Executive  Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to  18  U.S.C.  section  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge:

     (1)  The  Report  fully  complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the  Company.


/s/  ANTHONY  HUANG
--------------------------------

Anthony  Huang
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

August 14, 2002


<PAGE>