alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §6709. Penalties with respect to mortgage credit certificates

#### (a) Negligence

If—

(1) any person makes a material misstatement in any verified written statement made under penalties of perjury with respect to the issuance of a mortgage credit certificate, and

(2) such misstatement is due to the negligence of such person,

such person shall pay a penalty of $1,000 for each mortgage credit certificate with respect to which such a misstatement was made.

#### (b) Fraud

If a misstatement described in subsection (a)(1) is due to fraud on the part of the person making such misstatement, in addition to any criminal penalty, such person shall pay a penalty of $10,000 for each mortgage credit certificate with respect to which such a misstatement is made.

#### (c) Reports

Any person required by section 25(g) to file a report with the Secretary who fails to file the report with respect to any mortgage credit certificate at the time and in the manner required by the Secretary shall pay a penalty of $200 for such failure unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect. In the case of any report required under the second sentence of section 25(g), the aggregate amount of the penalty imposed by the preceding sentence shall not exceed $2,000.

#### (d) Mortgage credit certificate

The term "mortgage credit certificate" has the meaning given to such term by section 25(c).

(Added Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, title VI, §612(d)(1), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 912, §6708; renumbered §6709, Pub. L. 99–514, title XVIII, §1862(d)(2), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2884.)

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

#### Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–514 effective, except as otherwise provided, as if included in the provisions of the Tax Reform Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, to which such amendment relates, see section 1881 of Pub. L. 99–514, set out as a note under section 48 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Section applicable to interest paid or accrued after Dec. 31, 1984, on indebtedness incurred after Dec. 31, 1984, see section 612(g) of Pub. L. 98–369, set out as a note under section 25 of this title.
### §241. Allowance of special deductions

In addition to the deductions provided in part VI (sec. 161 and following), there shall be allowed as deductions in computing taxable income the items specified in this part.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 72.)
No. 32,725

#### Joseph H. Greaser, *Appellant,*v. The Western Casualty & Surety Company, *Appellee.*

Opinion filed May 9, 1936.

*J. J. Schenck*and *C. P. Schenck,*both of Topeka, for the appellant.

*Allen Meyers*and *Ralph M. Hope,*both of Topeka, for the appellee.

The judgment of the district court is reversed on authority of *Dunn v. Jones,*ante, p. 218, 53 P. 2d 918, and the cause is remanded with direction to overrule the demurrer to the petition.
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

#### Contact Us

Thing to Do

# Daemonelix Trail

Agate Fossil Beds National Monument
§ 4300.50 Are there other uses of the land that may affect my permit? Yes. The lands described in your grazing permit and the subsurface can be affected by uses that BLM considers more important than grazing. Your permit can be modified or reduced in size or canceled by BLM to allow for: ( a ) Protection, development and use of the natural resources, e.g., minerals, timber, and water, under applicable laws and regulations;
( b ) Agricultural use;
( c ) Applications for and the acquisition of homesites, easements, permits, leases or other rights and uses, or any disposal or withdrawal, under the applicable public land laws; or
( d ) Temporary closing of portions of the permitted area to grazing whenever, because of improper handling of reindeer, overgrazing, fire or other cause, BLM judges this necessary to restore the range to its normal condition.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996             JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996             SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                       3,413,297               2,700,298
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,690,633               4,950,769
<ALLOWANCES>                                    36,762                  36,762
<INVENTORY>                                  3,156,373               2,354,254
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,500,477              11,165,185
<PP&E>                                         647,577                 668,420
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,363,352              12,023,903
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,763,812               2,449,010
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         5,620                   5,620
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,501,557               9,476,270
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,363,352              12,023,903
<SALES>                                      3,455,620               6,116,344
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,455,620               6,116,344
<CGS>                                        2,102,565               4,738,415
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,373,780                 805,192
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,198                 629,768
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,911                 230,850
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,287                 398,918
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.02                    0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.02                    0.07
        

</TABLE>
SECOND AMENDMENT
                         TO THE EXCESS BENEFIT AGREEMENT

                                       OF

                      FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK OF MARION
                                 MARION, INDIANA

This Second Amendment  ("Amendment"),  dated the 10th day of March, 2000, hereby
amends the Excess  Benefit  Agreement  ("Agreement")  dated  February  28, 1996,
between First Federal Savings Bank of Marion and John M. Dalton as follows:

The following Section 8.12 is added to the Agreement:

8.14     Secular  Trust.  A secular  trust called the John Dalton  Grantor Trust
         shall be  established  in the event of a Change in Control,  into which
         the Bank shall make a contribution only in such event. If the Executive
         dies  prior to this  contribution  being  made,  then  the  Executive's
         Beneficiary  is entitled to the  Survivor's  Benefit  beginning  within
         thirty (30) days payable over the Payout Period. The contribution shall
         be the full present value,  using an appropriate  discount rate, of the
         benefit specified in Subsection 1.14;  provided,  however,  in no event
         shall the  contribution  be less than an amount which is  sufficient to
         provide the Executive with after-tax  benefits (assuming a constant tax
         rate  equal  to the rate in  effect  as of the  date of the  Change  in
         Control)  beginning  at his Benefit Age equal in amount to that benefit
         which would have been payable to the  Executive if no secular trust had
         been implemented and the benefit  obligation had been accrued under APB
         Opinion No. 12, as amended by FAS 106.


<PAGE>


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Bank has caused ths Amendment to be executed in
triplicate, this the 10th day of March, 2000.

                                    FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK OF MARION

                                    By: /s/ Steven L. Banks

                                    Title: President


                                    /S/ John M. Dalton
                                    ----------------------------------------
                                    JOHN M. DALTON
### §6692. Failure to file actuarial report

The plan administrator (as defined in section 414(g)) of each defined benefit plan to which section 412 applies who fails to file the report required by section 6059 at the time and in the manner required by section 6059, shall pay a penalty of $1,000 for each such failure unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause.

(Added Pub. L. 93–406, title II, §1033(b), Sept. 2, 1974, 88 Stat. 948.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Sept. 2, 1974, see section 1034 of Pub. L. 93–406, set out as a note under section 6057 of this title.
15~ NTMENT G (ot IArlRP

oA

6'ti'f.+r~~~ ~~ F-vLpM3+iptG

. _

Dear Interested Parties:

Sincerely,

4ci4l .sy

Attachments

United States Department of the Interior

MAY , 9 2003

calling 916-978-5100, TDD 916-978-5608, to request a copy.

Bureau of Reclamation U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service

Mid-Pacific Region California/Nevada Operations Office

2800 Cottage Way 2800 Cottage Way

Sacramento, California 95825 Sacramento, California 95825

Attached is the Department of the Interior's (Interior) Final Decision on Implementation of

Section 3406(b)(2) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Decision). Additional copies

of the decision may be obtained by:

downloading a PDF version from Reclamation's website at www.mp .usbr.gov, or

Interior has carefully considered comments received on the Draft Decision, dated December 18,

2002, in making this Decision. Responses to all comments received on the Draft Decision are

also attached. Interior believes that these revisions serve to clarify provisions ofthe Draft

Decision.

Interior intends for this Final Decision to be effective immediately and to be implemented in the

2004 Water Year, beginning October 1, 2003. Interior will use the interim period to continue

discussions with the State of California and other CALFED agencies to coordinate the

Environmental Water Account and other CALFED Record of Decision activities with this Final

Decision on CVPIA Section 3406(b)(2) implementation. For the remainder of the 2003 Water

Year, Interior will implement (b)(2) as described in the October 5, 1999, Decision, making

operational decisions consistent with the Federal District Court Order.

Kirk C. Rodgers r Steve Thompson

Regional Director Manager, California-Nevada Operations

Bureau of Reclamation U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service
- Skip to global NPS navigation
    - Skip to the main content
    - Skip to the footer section

National Park Service**Search

# **OpenMenu**CloseMenu

## Explore This Park

## Explore the National Park Service

## Exiting nps.gov

#### Contact Us

Thing to Do

# Hiking off-trail

Guadalupe Mountains National Park
### **CHAPTER 115—EVIDENCE; DOCUMENTARY**

Sec.
1731.
Handwriting.
1732.
Record made in regular course of business; photographic copies.
1733.
Government records and papers; copies.
1734.
Court record lost or destroyed generally. 1

1735.
Court record lost or destroyed where United States interested.
1736.
Congressional Journals.
1737.
Copy of officer's bond.
1738.
State and Territorial statutes and judicial proceedings; full faith and credit.
1738A.
Full faith and credit given to child custody determinations.
1738B.
Full faith and credit for child support orders.
1738C.
Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof.
1739.
State and Territorial nonjudicial records; full faith and credit.
1740.
Copies of consular papers.
1741.
Foreign official documents.
[1742.
Repealed.]
1743.
Demand on postmaster.
1744.
Copies of United States Patent and Trademark Office documents generally. 1
1745.
Copies of foreign patent documents.
1746.
Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1999**—Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4732(b)(15)(A)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–584, which directed the amendment of item 1744 by substituting "United States Patent and Trademark Office" for "Patent Office", was executed by making the substitution for "patent office" to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

**1996**—Pub. L. 104–199, §2(b), Sept. 21, 1996, 110 Stat. 2419, added item 1738C.

**1994**—Pub. L. 103–383, §3(b), Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 4066, added item 1738B.

**1980**—Pub. L. 96–611, §8(b), Dec. 28, 1980, 94 Stat. 3571, added item 1738A.

**1976**—Pub. L. 94–550, §1(b), Oct. 18, 1976, 90 Stat. 2534, added item 1746.

**1964**—Pub. L. 88–619, §§5(b), 6(b), 7(b), Oct. 3, 1964, 78 Stat. 996, substituted "official documents" for "documents generally; copies" in item 1741, inserted "[Repealed]" in item 1742, and substituted "documents" for "specifications and drawings" in item 1745.

**1951**—Act Aug. 28, 1951, ch. 351, §2, 65 Stat. 206, inserted "; photographic copies" in item 1732.

**1949**—Act May 24, 1949, ch. 139, §92(a), 63 Stat. 103, struck out item 1745 "Printed copies of patient specifications and drawings" and renumbered item 1746 as 1745.

1  So in original. Does not conform to section catchline.
### [§1020. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–455, title XIX, §1901(a)(125), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1784]

Section, act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 302, related to election to have section 1016(a)(2)(B) of this title apply in respect of periods since Feb. 28, 1913, and before Jan. 1, 1952.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon ORNELAS-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-40849.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

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

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

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ramon Ornelas-Rodriguez appeals his guilty-plea sentence for being unlawfully found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b). We need not decide the applicability of the waiver provisions in OrnelasRodriguez’s plea agreement because his constitutional challenge is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Although Ornelas-Rodriguez contends that *Almendarez-Torres*was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule *Almendarez-Torres*in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that *Almendarez-Torres*remains binding. *See United States v. Garza-Lopez,*410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), *cert, denied,*— U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 298, 163 L.Ed.2d 260 (2005). Ornelas-Rodriguez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of *Almendarez-Torres*and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on September 9, 2004, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), the Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society (“ISA”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place of business of the standards development organization is: The Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society, Research Triangle Park, NC. The nature and scope of ISA's standards development activities are: The development and maintenance of standards, recommended practices, and technical reports for instrumentation, measurement, control, systems, and automation.

Dorothy B. Fountain,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 04-22891  Filed 10-12-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-24-00365-CV

___________________________

Original Proceeding

43rd District Court of Parker County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. CR09-0661, CR09-0662

Before Wallach, Womack, and Walker, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

IN RE JOHNATHAN COOPER, Relator
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the 

opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus is denied.

Per Curiam

Delivered: August 16, 2024
§ 3802.3-1 Environmental assessment. ( a ) When a plan of operations or significant modification is filed, the authorized officer shall make an environmental assessment to identify the impacts of the proposed mining operations upon the environment and to determine whether the proposed activity will impair the suitability of the area for preservation as wilderness or cause unnecessary and undue degradation and whether an environmental impact statement is required.
( b ) Following completion of the environmental assessment or the environmental impact statement, the authorized officer shall develop measures deemed necessary for inclusion in the plan of operations that will prevent impairment of wilderness suitability and undue or unnecessary degradation of land and resources.
( c ) If as a result of the environment assessment, the authorized officer determines that there is substantial public interest in the proposed mining operations, the operator may be notified that an additional period of time is required to consider public comments. The period shall not exceed the additional 60 days provided for approval of a plan in § 3802.1-4 of this title except as provided for cases requiring an environmental impact statement, a cultural resource inventory or section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
#### § 102.10 Preservation of records.

Each component shall preserve all correspondence pertaining to the requests that it receives under this subpart, as well as copies of all requested records, until disposition or destruction is authorized pursuant to title 44 of the United States Code or the General Records Schedule 14 of the National Archives and Records Administration. Records shall not be disposed of or destroyed while they are the subject of a pending request, appeal, or lawsuit under the FOIA.
#### B. D. Buford *&*Co. v. Baum & Baum.

Action brought in the district court of Barton county, by *B. D. Buford & Go.,*a corporation organized under the laws of Illinois, against Moses Baum and another, partners as *Baum & Baum,*to recover the possession of a certain stock of hardware and agricultural implements, or in default of such recovery, to obtain a judgment against defendants for $1,913.20, with interest and costs. The plaintiff based its action upon a certain chattel mortgage, a copy of which is as follows, to wit:

*“Know all men by these presents,*That we, Baum & Baum, a copartnership composed of Moses Baum, of Hebron, Nebraska, and Moses Baum, of Great Bend, Kansas, are indebted to B. D. Buford & Co., of Rock Island, Illinois, for goods sold and delivered by said B. D. Buford & Co. to Baum *&*Baum in the sum of $1,913.21, to be paid by said Baum & Baum to said Buford *&*Co. on the first day of November, 1879, and if not paid on that date, to bear ten per cent, interest thereafter. Now to secure the payment of said money above mentioned, at the time mentioned, the said Baum *&*Baum hereby sell, transfer and convey to the said B. D. Buford & Co. the following personal property, to wit:

[Here follows a description of the property mortgaged.]

Now this sale is intended to be a mortgage, and to be void if said debt is paid on the first day of November, 1879; but if the debt be not then paid, to be in full force and effect in law. The mortgagors to continue in possession of the mortgaged property until the mortgage becomes due, or until the mortgagees deem themselves insecure.

Signed this 2d day of July, 1879. Baum & Baum.”

The defendants answered, first, by a general denial; and second, that—

“.The chattel mortgage upon which suit has been brought, was obtained by fraud of the plaintiffs, and is wholly null and void; that by reason of the fraudulent representations of the plaintiffs, by and through their agents, the defendants have been damaged in the full sum of two thousand dollars to their said business in Great Bend. Wherefore, defendants *106demand judgment against the plaintiffs in the sum of two thousand dollars and costs of suit.”

The plaintiff replied by a general denial of each and every material allegation of the answer. Trial at the March Term, 1882, of the district court, when the jury returned a verdict as follows:

“We, the jury, impaneled and sworn in the above-entitled case, do upon our oaths find for the defendants, and assess their damages at $1,867, after deducting the amount of plaintiff’s mortgage.”

New trial denied, and judgment accordingly for the defendants. The plaintiff corporation brings the case to this court.

*Rossington, Johnston & Smith,*and *Maher & Osmond,*for plaintiff in error.

*Per Curiam:*

The judgment in this case is reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial, on the authority of *Werner v. Bergman,*28 Kas. 60. Other errors are apparent in the record, but the correction of the fundamental error above referred to will doubtless avoid a recurrence of such errors, and therefore any special notice of them is unnecessary.