alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §916. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–14, §3, June 16, 1981, 95 Stat. 98

Section, Pub. L. 93–203, title IV, §441, as added Pub. L. 95–524, §2, Oct. 27, 1978, 92 Stat. 1989, provided that, of the sums available for carrying out the provisions of this part, 15 percent would be available for subpart 1, 15 percent would be available for subpart 2, and 70 percent would be available for subpart 3.

A prior section 916, Pub. L. 93–203, title IV, §406, Dec. 28, 1973, 87 Stat. 865, related to enrollment and assignment in the Job Corps, prior to the general revision of Pub. L. 93–203 by Pub. L. 95–524.

Provisions similar to those comprising this section were contained in former section 895 of this title prior to the general revision of Pub. L. 93–203 by Pub. L. 95–524.
Order entered June 11, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00083-CR

CHRISTOPHER ALLEN JOHNSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-57233-J

ORDER

 In this case, appellant raises an issue related to the costs assessed against him. The 

record, however, does not contain a cost bill or other document with an itemized list of costs 

assessed in this case.

Accordingly, we ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within FIFTEEN 

DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental clerk’s record containing a detailed itemization 

of the costs assessed in this case, including but not limited to, specific court costs, fees, and court 

appointed attorney fees. We further ORDER that the supplemental clerk’s record include a 

document explaining any and all abbreviations used to designate a particular fee, cost, or court 

appointed attorney fee.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal 

Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
!!"#$

!!"#%&'('%!)&**+&(+',#%&
-%&

	


 .//011$/$ 

,
2'$




 (
3
3$43%15226
376%8/9%39(
2(2:/2;
24
22;

/$3
'(:<(+"3
.$
4
3=$
4'	
>.%(
3
34

<(+"&
3
3

 +=4
22;/$3
4

=
3;
.
4=4
;
//23?;.2;4

4.

34;$.
4;
2$.;$4	
3$
322.;


@ +4.
3

$3'3
3$$(/<	2$.;.3//.27':$$ '	
-<	2:8

 "
4./
3/
522
34<(+"&
3
3=#2
33522$3

"
2
33522$3%	3522$3544
/

 +=4
22;54

45=.
3#
//A$
24$21/42252.=

 "
1
2
5/2$
3

%=
.=;21;;
2=.43
3
	2


//2
3

 (
1=4.;21
3;21
/
;2.3<(+"&
3
32
33
3


	2
;.3

 +=4
22BCD;/$3
23
2.
4;
2
	3$
4
2;


.2E
./F%394
.2.=4
.2=454.=44;
2
/$3

423
2.


.$
1$3=4;
2.
.
3	3
225



#2

!!"#




 /
$.;//2
3<(+"&
3
3
3/3.



!!"#%1522+=#3.



 '
22;
2'	
>.%(G.	
2
3/
3==.


3
225=$$/
;5;
2.

33

 #$
3$	43+
.$

323;$3

/
7+2=;
2=
4
3==;H.
8

 %3
3//!!"#=2
@%%I<	
=

	
2.%

 '.2
.3$
22

!!"#












$$#;2$%15226
3+=:#2E
2



 /
	$
$/2//



 (
1=4.;21
3;21522.2;25$
2
3=

 -
3
33'(:<(+"&=$
4

 
2
.3;=23
2.
54;.//=.

@+.2
;J/254

.
2.2$$

232

 (.
$47(.
4
;;2
3542
;3=2
;
38

 +=
.
4

354
*++<2E2
13522.23
$
=

43
$33
3/3.
2.2

 %1522=
122
3$

1$
/
!!"#





KKLMMMMNO

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-166 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 1 of 2
	




 !!"#$



  

%&' %&'

%&'(

))*++++,,

Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-166 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 2 of 2
### [§189. Repealed. Pub. L. 99–514, title VIII, §803(b)(1), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2355]

Section, added Pub. L. 94–455, title II, §201(a), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1525; amended Pub. L. 95–600, title VII, §701(m)(1), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2907; Pub. L. 97–34, title II, §262(a), (b), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 264; Pub. L. 97–248, title II, §207(a)–(d), Sept. 3, 1982, 96 Stat. 431, 432; Pub. L. 97–354, §5(a)(24), Oct. 19, 1982, 96 Stat. 1694; Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, title I, §93(a), title VII, §712(c), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 614, 947, related to amortization of real property construction period interest and taxes.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

If any interest costs incurred after Dec. 31, 1986, are attributable to costs incurred before Jan. 1, 1987, the repeal of this section is applicable to such interest costs only to the extent such interest costs are attributable to costs which were required to be capitalized under section 263 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and which would have been taken into account in applying this section (as in effect before its repeal) or, if applicable, section 266 of such Code, see section 7831(d)(2) of Pub. L. 101–239, set out as an Effective Date note under section 263A of this title.

Repeal applicable to costs incurred after Dec. 31, 1986, in taxable years ending after such date, except as otherwise provided, see section 803(d) of Pub. L. 99–514, set out as an Effective Date note under section 263A of this title.
|   | (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/      Kenneth      Phillippe                                                          |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Kenneth      Phillippe                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
| Chief      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer(Principal      Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and      Principal Accounting Officer)                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
| April 15,      2010                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
#### Sylvia Benintendi, Respondent, v. Marie Benintendi, as Administratrix of the Estate of James V. Benintendi, Appellant.

Action to recover damages for fraud, based on representations by the decedent that he was divorced and competent to marry the plaintiff when the fact was that he was incompetent to do so. Judgment for the plaintiff unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ. [See *post,*p. 1016.]
#### In the Matter of Frank Lopinto, Respondent, against Ordway Tead et al., Constituting the Board of Higher Education of the City of New York, et al., Appellants.

First Department,

November 27, 1951.

*139
      *Helen R. Cassidy*of counsel *(Seymour B. Quel*and *Daniel T. Scannell*with her on the brief; *Denis M. Hurley, Corporation Counsel,*attorney), for appellants.

*Morris Weissberg,*attorney *(Sidney A. Fine*with him on the brief), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

While appointment must be made during the life of a certification, there is no requirement that an oath be taken and filed before the certification expires. The oath requirement is a condition subsequent to appointment and must be complied with before the employee enters upon the discharge of his duties. No time limitation for compliance is prescribed by the statute. Section 30 of the Civil Service Law merely provides that in the event there is a refusal or willful failure to take and file an oath the employment is to terminate. It implies the existence of an employee-employer relationship before the oath is taken.

Consequently, in this .case the filing of the oath more than thirty days after certification did not vitiate an appointment validly made during the effective period of the certification. As the other grounds urged by petitioner furnish no basis for the granting of relief sought, the order appealed from should be reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements, the application denied and the petition dismissed.

Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Callahan and Van Voorhis, J«L, concur.

Order unanimously reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellants, the application denied and the petition dismissed. Settle order on notice.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

101 Marietta Street, N.W.

Suite 2900

Atlanta, GA 30323

No: II-97-18 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark (404) 331-5503 (Thursday, February

27,1997)

Roger Hannah (404) 331-7878

NRC STAFF ISSUES PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT FOR NORTH ANNA NUCLEAR

PLANT

Performance superior in plant operations, maintenance & plant

support;

good in engineering

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has issued a

Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) report for

Virginia Power Company's North Anna nuclear power plant near

Mineral, Virginia, which continues previously assessed "superior"

ratings in the areas of plant operations, maintenance and plant

support but rates engineering from a previous level of "superior"

to "good."

The report, which covers a period from December 25, 1994

through January 11, 1997, says continued superior performance in

the area of plant operations was characterized by strong management

oversight. Superior performance in maintenance was due to strong

management support, excellent planning and high quality work. A

superior rating also continued from the last assessment period in

the category of plant support, which includes radiological

controls, emergency planning, physical security and fire

protection.

NRC officials said plant performance in the engineering

category was excellent in major areas but went from a previous

"superior" assessment to one of "good" because facility

modifications resulted in some operations which differed from the

plant's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), upon which the plant's

license is based. FSAR requirements were not adequately

incorporated into procedures, and procedures were neither changed

nor clearly written to assure that commitments were appropriately

satisfied.

A public meeting between NRC and Virginia Power officials to

discuss details of the report has been scheduled for 1:00 p.m.

(EST) on March 6 at the North Anna site. This meeting, and a

following meeting with public officials, is open to observation by

members of the public and the press. NRC officials will be
available at the meetings' conclusion to answer questions from

interested observers.

#
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

 CASE NO.: 9:20-cv-81155-RKA

HOWARD COHAN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

LINTON FOODS LLC

a Florida Limited Liability Company

d/b/a MCDONALD'S 11666

Defendant(s).

____________________________________/

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

The Plaintiff, HOWARD COHAN and the Defendant, LINTON FOODS LLC, a Florida 

Limited Liability Company, d/b/a MCDONALD'S 11666, (the Parties) by and through their 

undersigned counsel, hereby notifies the Court that the instant action has settled. Accordingly, the 

Parties expect to file a stipulation of dismissal within thirty (30) days and should not be required 

to file any further responses, motions, and/or pleadings.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED October 1, 2020.

By: /s/ Gregory S. Sconzo

Gregory S. Sconzo, Esq. 

Florida Bar No.: 0105553

Sconzo Law Office, P.A.

3825 PGA Boulevard, Suite 207

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

Telephone: (561) 729-0940

Facsimile: (561) 491-9459

Service Email: sconzolaw@gmail.com

Email: greg@sconzolawoffice.com 

Attorney for Plaintiff

By: /s/ Carmen Rodriguez 

Carmen Rodriguez, Esq

Florida Bar No. 710385

Law Offices of Carmen Rodriguez, P.A.

Palmetto Bay Centre

15715 South Dixie Highway, Suite 411

Palmetto Bay, Florida 333157

Telephone: (305) 254-6101

Facsimile: (305) 254-6048

Email Address: crpa@crlaborlawfirm.com

Attorneys for Defendant

Case 9:20-cv-81155-RKA Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 1, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document 

is being served this day on counsel of record in this action via transmission of Notices of Electronic 

Filing generated by CM/ECF.

_ /s/ Gregory S. Sconzo

Gregory S. Sconzo, Esq.

Case 9:20-cv-81155-RKA Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 2 of 2
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 Quarterly Report of Shoe Carnival, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 29, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark L. Lemond, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct 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.

|Date:  December 8, 2005 | By: | /s/ Mark L. Lemond     
|----------------------- | --- | -----------------------
|                        |     |                        
|                        |     | Mark L. Lemond         
|                        |     | President and          
|                        |     | Chief Executive Officer
#### James E. BENSINGER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Appellee.

No. 01-3642.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 2, 2002.

Filed May 7, 2002.

Before LOKEN, BEAM, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

James Bensinger appeals from the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his suit claiming age and veteran discrimination. Bensinger alleged that the United States Postal Service terminated him three weeks after hiring him because it realized that his prior government experience entitled him to the benefits of a ten-year employee. The Postal Service countered that it terminated him after receiving information that he had falsified his employment application.

We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, construing the record and all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. *See Dorsey v. Pinnacle Automation Co.,*278 F.3d 830, 834-35 (8th Cir.2002). After careful review of the record before us, we reject Bensinger’s argument that the district court erred in dismissing his age discrimination claim. An employer who fires an employee simply to avoid paying benefits does not thereby violate federal laws against age discrimination, even if the employee is over 40 years old. *See Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins,*507 U.S. 604, 611-12, 113 S.Ct. 1701, 123 L.Ed.2d 338 (1993); *Snow v. Ridgeview Med. Ctr.,*128 F.3d 1201, 1208 (8th Cir. 1997). Besinger waived his remaining arguments, including his argument on the *280veteran discrimination claims, by failing properly to raise them in the district court. *See United States v. One Parcel of Prop. Located at RR 2,*959 F.2d 101, 103 (8th Cir.1992).

Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Kathleen A. Jaudzemis, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska.
§ 9.16 Guidance for applicants. ( a ) The Agency shall encourage and provide adequate guidance to applicants for agency assistance to evaluate the effects of their plans and proposals in or affecting floodplains and wetlands.
( b ) This shall be accomplished primarily through amendment of all Agency instructions to applicants, and also through contact made by agency staff during the normal course of their activities, to fully inform prospective applicants of: ( 1 ) The Agency's policy on floodplain management and wetlands protection as set out in § 9.2;
( 2 ) The decision-making process to be used by the Agency in making the determination of whether to take an action in or affecting floodplains or wetlands as set out in § 9.6;
( 3 ) The practicability analysis as set out in § 9.9;
( 4 ) The mitigation responsibilities as set out in § 9.11;
( 5 ) The public notice and involvement process as set out in §§ 9.8 and 9.12; and
( 6 ) The supplemental requirements applicable to applications for the lease or other disposal of Agency owned properties set out in § 9.14.
( c ) Guidance to applicants shall be provided, where possible, prior to the time of application in order to minimize potential delays in the Agency's processing of the application due to failure of applicants to follow the provisions in this part.
[45 FR 59526, Sept. 9, 1980, as amended at 89 FR 57046, July 11, 2024]
§ 44.23 How does the Department certify payment computations? ( a ) The Department will certify a payment computation only after receiving a statement showing all land revenue sharing payments that each local government received from the State during the previous fiscal year. As used in this paragraph, “land revenue sharing payments” means payments made from revenues derived from the payment laws listed under 31 U.S.C. 6903(a)(1). The statement must: ( 1 ) Be signed by the Governor or a designated official of the State in which the local government is located; and
( 2 ) Be accompanied by a certification, signed by a State Auditor, an independent Certified Public Accountant, or an independent public accountant, that the statement has been audited in accordance with: ( i ) Auditing standards established by the U.S. Comptroller General in Standards of Audit of Governmental Organizations, Programs, Activities and Function, (available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402); and
( ii ) The Audit Guide for Payments in Lieu of Taxes issued by the Department of the Interior.
( b ) The Department's Office of the Inspector General will assist the Department, under the provisions of sections 4 and 6 of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. Appendix), to implement and administer the audit requirements in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
( c ) The Office of the Inspector General will: ( 1 ) Develop appropriate audit guidelines that State auditors, independent Certified Public Accountants, or independent public accountants must use to audit the statements of the Governors or their designated officials and to certify the audits; and
( 2 ) Furnish copies of the guides to the Governor or designated official each year. You should send questions on the use or application of this guide to the Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC 20240.
( d ) The Department may waive the requirement to certify audits if the General Accounting Office or the Office of the Inspector General verifies the information in statements the Governor or designated official furnishes or if the Department determines it is not necessary. Payments to Local Governments for Acquisitions or Interest in Lands Acquired for Addition to the National Park System or National Forest Wilderness Areas (31 U.S.C. 6904).
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 156 (Wednesday, August 13, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 47402]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19165]

[[Page 47402]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

25 CFR Part 169

[Docket ID BIA-2014-0001; DR.5B711.IA000814]
RIN 1076-AF20

Rights-of-Way on Indian Land

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; Extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On June 17, 2014, we published a proposed rule to revise 
regulations governing rights-of-way on Indian land. We have since 
received several requests for extension of the comment period. This 
notice extends the comment deadline by 45 days and announces the 
addition of a public hearing on the proposed rule.

DATES: Comments on this rule must be received by October 2, 2014. The 
public hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 17, 2014, at 1 p.m. 
Eastern Time.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. The 
rule is listed under the agency name ``Bureau of Indian Affairs.'' The 
rule has been assigned Docket ID: BIA-2014-0001.
     Email: consultation@bia.gov. Include the number 1076-AF20 
in the subject line.
     Mail or hand delivery: Ms. Elizabeth Appel, Office of 
Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative Action, U.S. Department of the 
Interior, 1849 C Street NW., MS 3642, Washington, DC 20240. Include the 
number 1076-AF20 on the envelope.
    Please note that none of the following will be considered or 
included in the docket for this rulemaking: comments received after the 
close of the comment period (see DATES) or comments sent to an address 
other than those listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Elizabeth Appel, Director, Office 
of Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative Action, (202) 273-4680; 
elizabeth.appel@bia.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    On June 17, 2014, we published a proposed rule to comprehensively 
update and streamline the process for obtaining BIA grants of rights-
of-way on Indian land. See 79 FR 34455. Since publication of the 
proposed rule, we have received several requests for extension of the 
comment period and the opportunity for additional public input. This 
notice extends the comment deadline by 45 days and announces a public 
hearing on this proposed rule. The public hearing will be held by 
teleconference on Wednesday, September 17, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., 
Eastern Time, at (888) 790-2010, passcode 1863865.
    The proposed rule, frequently asked questions, and other 
information are online at: http://www.bia.gov/WhoWeAre/AS-IA/ORM/RightsofWay/index.htm.

    Dated: August 8, 2014.
Lawrence S. Roberts,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2014-19165 Filed 8-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-W7-P
```