alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ingenuities Corporation of America, Respondent, v. Arthur Siegman, Inc., Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.
§ 142.10 What is contained in a complaint? ( a ) A complaint is a written statement giving notice to the person alleged to be liable under 31 U.S.C. 3802 of the specific allegations being referred for adjudication and of the person's right to request a hearing with respect to those allegations. The person alleged to have made false statements or to have submitted false claims to SBA is referred to as the “defendant.”
( b ) The reviewing official may join in a single complaint false claims or statements that are unrelated or were not submitted simultaneously, regardless of the amount of money or the value of property or services demanded or requested.
( c ) The complaint will state that SBA seeks to impose civil penalties, assessments, or both, against each defendant and will include: ( 1 ) The allegations of liability against each defendant, including the statutory basis for liability, identification of the claims or statements involved, and the reasons liability allegedly arises from such claims or statements;
( 2 ) The maximum amount of penalties and assessments for which each defendant may be held liable;
( 3 ) A statement that each defendant may request a hearing by filing an answer and may be represented by a representative;
( 4 ) Instructions for filing such an answer;
( 5 ) A warning that failure to file an answer within 30 days of service of the complaint will result in imposition of the maximum amount of penalties and assessments.
( d ) The reviewing official must serve any complaint on the defendant and provide a copy to the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). If a hearing is requested, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) from OHA will serve as the Presiding Officer.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Sergio SHANLATE-FIGUEREO, a/k/a Anibal Sanchez, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 01-1456.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 28, 2002.

*27Paul J. Evangelista, Assistant Federal Public Defender (Alexander Bunin, Federal Public Defender, and Molly Corbett, on the brief), Albany, NY, for Appellant.

Tina E. Sciocchetti, Assistant United States Attorney (Joseph A. Pavone, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Barbara D. Cottrell, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), Albany, NY, for Appellee.

Present WALKER, Jr., Chief Judge, JACOBS, and LEVAL, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the appeal from the judgment of said district court be and it hereby is DISMISSED.

Defendant-appellant Sergio Shanlate-Figuereo appeals from his sentence imposed by the district court after conviction upon a guilty plea for the failure to report monetary instruments of more than $10,000 upon entering the United States, in violation of 31 U.S.C. §§ 5316, 5322(a). Defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of nine months, three years of supervised release, and a fíne and assessment totaling $ 2050.00.

Defendant failed to surrender to the United States Bureau of Prisons on October 11, 2001, as ordered by the district court, and remains a fugitive at the time of this appeal. The Supreme Court has “consistently and unequivocally approve[d] dismissal as an appropriate sanction when a prisoner is a fugitive during the ongoing appellate process.” *Ortega-Rodriguez v. United States,*507 U.S. 234, 242, 113 S.Ct. 1199, 122 L.Ed.2d 581 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted); *see United States v. Pérsico,*853 F.2d 134, 136-37 (2d Cir. 1988).

We note that we believe it was an error of judgment for the Government to ignore the various points raised by the defendant, relying solely on the contention that the appeal should be dismissed because of defendant’s fugitive status, and asking by footnote for an extension of thirty days to brief the issues “should the court determine that [the] appeal will be addressed.” If the Government wished to have the appeal dismissed without the court hearing defendant’s points, this should have been raised in advance of briefing by motion to dismiss. Having failed to move for such a dismissal, the Government had not forfeited the right to argue for dismissal, but was nonetheless obligated to provide the court with the briefing it would need to decide the appeal.

For the reasons set forth above, the appeal is DISMISSED.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-99-5 January 14, 1999

Contact: Diane Screnci (610/337-5330) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

A meeting scheduled for 1 p.m. today between Nuclear

Regulatory Commission staff and representatives of Washington

Hospital Center, Washington, D.C., has been postponed due to

inclement weather. No new date has yet been scheduled.

The purpose of the predecisional enforcement conference

is to discuss 10 apparent violations of NRC requirements by the

medical facility involving the handling of radioactive material,

specifically the apparent loss of a nuclear pacemaker.

ˇˇˇˇ

ˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇˇ
§ 333.32 Controlling the general distribution of a material in the civilian market. No allocation action by FEMA may be used to control the general distribution of a material in the civilian market unless the President, the Administrator, or another official with lawful authority under section 101(b) of the Act has made a written finding that: ( a ) Such material is a scarce and critical material essential to the national defense, and
( b ) The requirements of the national defense for such material cannot otherwise be met without creating a significant dislocation of the normal distribution of such material in the civilian market to such a degree as to create appreciable hardship.
Exhibit 10.10


 





 






     


     


    

 





 






    2


     


    

 


 


 






    3


     


    

 





 






    4


     


    

 





 





    5
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar PEREZ-ORNELAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50807.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 24, 2006.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendants Appellant.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Oscar Perez-Ornelas raises arguments that are foreclosed by *AlmendarezTorres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is 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.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 5126 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to strike the provision of 

the American Opportunity Tax Credit that denies the credit to students 

with felony drug convictions. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2022 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN (for himself, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. WYDEN, and Mr. 

MERKLEY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to strike 

the provision of the American Opportunity Tax Credit 

that denies the credit to students with felony drug convictions. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Eliminating Discrimi5 nation And Creating Corridors to Expand Student Success 

6 Act of 2022’’ or the ‘‘ED ACCESS Act of 2022’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 5126 IS

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF DENIAL OF AMERICAN OPPOR2 TUNITY TAX CREDIT FOR STUDENTS CON3 VICTED OF A FELONY DRUG OFFENSE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 25A(b)(2) of the Internal 

5 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking subpara6 graph (D). 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the 

9 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### § 67.11 Notice of final determination.

The Federal Insurance Administrator's notice of the final flood elevation determination for a community shall be in written form and published in the Federal Register, and copies shall be sent to the CEO, all individual appellants and the State Coordinating Agency.

[41 FR 46989, Oct. 26, 1976. Redesignated at 44 FR 31177, May 31, 1979, as amended at 48 FR 44553, Sept. 29, 1983; 49 FR 4751, Feb. 8, 1984]

###### Editorial Note

#### Editorial Note:

For the list of communities issued under this section, and not carried in the CFR, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro CARDENAS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-50945.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided March 1, 2006.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Margaret M. Embry, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Matthew Rex Dekoatz, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Alejandro Cardenas appeals his convictions and 80-month sentences for importing marijuana and possessing marijuana with intent to distribute. Cardenas argues that the district court abused its discretion by failing to order sua sponte a hearing to determine whether he was competent to plead guilty. He has not established that the district court had received information creating a bona fide doubt about competency. *Pate v. Robinson,*383 U.S. 375, 385, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966); *see also United States v. Davis,*61 F.3d 291, 304 (5th Cir.1995).

Cardenas also contends that the district court erred in sentencing him pursuant to the mandatory Guidelines regime held unconstitutional in *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 764-65, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The sentencing transcript is devoid of evidence that the district court would have imposed the same sentence under an advisory regime, and, therefore, the Government has not borne its burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the district court’s error was harmless. *See United States v. Walters,*418 F.3d 461, 464 (5th Cir.2005).

*411CONVICTION AFFIRMED; VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESEN-TENCING.

*

 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.
§ 11.78 Computation of amount of award. ( a ) The amount allowed for damage to or loss of any items of property may not exceed the cost of the item (either the price paid in cash or property, or the value at the time of acquisition if not acquired by purchase or exchange), and there will be no allowance for replacement cost or for appreciation in the value of the property. Subject to these limitations, the amount allowable is either: ( 1 ) The depreciated value, immediately prior to the loss or damage, of property lost or damaged beyond economical repair, less any salvage value; or
( 2 ) The reasonable cost or repairs, when property is economically repairable, provided that the cost of repairs does not exceed the amount allowable under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
( b ) Depreciation in value is determined by considering the type of article involved, its costs, its conditions when damaged or lost, and the time elapsed between the date of acquisition and the date of damage or loss.
( c ) Replacement of lost or damaged property may be made in-kind whenever appropriate.
### §87. Delaware

Delaware constitutes one judicial district.

Court shall be held at Wilmington.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 875.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §148 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §75, 36 Stat. 1108).

Minor changes in phraseology were made.
#### § 108.1720 Characteristics of SBA's guarantee.

If SBA agrees to guarantee a NMVC Company's Debentures, such guarantee will be unconditional, irrespective of the validity, regularity or enforceability of the Debentures or any other circumstances that might constitute a legal or equitable discharge or defense of a guarantor. Pursuant to its guarantee, SBA will make timely payments of principal and interest on the Debentures.
Editorial Note on Part 134
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 134.803 Commencement of appeals from SBA Employee Dispute Resolution Process cases (Employee Disputes). ( a ) An appeal from a Step Two decision must be commenced by filing an appeal petition within 15 calendar days from the date the Employee receives the Step Two decision.
( b ) If the Step Two Official does not issue a decision within 15 calendar days of receiving the SBA Dispute Form from the Employee, the Employee must file his/her appeal petition at OHA no later than 15 calendar days from the date the Step Two decision was due.
( c ) The rule for counting days is in § 134.202(d).
( d ) OHA will dismiss an untimely appeal.
[75 FR 47443, Aug. 6, 2010, as amended at 82 FR 25507, June 2, 2017]
EXHIBIT 32

                            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 RemoteMDx, Inc. on Form 10-KSB
for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), David G. Derrick, Chief
Executive Officer and Michael G. Acton, 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:

         (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/ David G. Derrick
                    --------------------------------------------
                    David G. Derrick
                    President and Chief Executive Officer
                    Medizone International, Inc.

                     /s/ Michael G. Acton
                    ----------------------------------------------
                    Michael G. Acton
                    Chief Financial Officer



Dated: October 30, 2003
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Christian Breuer, Respondent, against 517 West 212th Street Corp. et al., Appellants, and Special Disability Fund, Respondent. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

"This is an appeal by an employer and its insurance carrier from an award of workmen’s compensation. The accidental injuries and disability are not contested. The case involves two accidents. On May 10, 1944, claimant was injured when an *1044ash can fell on his foot. On November 4, 1944, he sustained accidental injuries resulting in severe burns to various parts of his body. The board found that both accidents ultimately caused an infection in the left foot which progressed to gangrene necessitating four operations, one of which included the amputation of claimant’s left leg. Separate claims were filed against the employer. The appellants contend that the provisions of subdivision 8 of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law apply. The board found that at the time of claimant’s employment he was not suffering from any .permanent physical disability and that he was not a disabled person when hired. The board also found that each of the accidents described contributed 50% to the disability suffered by claimant. The evidence sustains the finding. Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Russell and Deyo, JJ.
§ 128.403 What requirements are not available for VOSB or SDVOSB contracts? For VA procurements, a contracting officer may award a VOSB or SDVOSB contract as set forth in the VAAR. For non-VA SDVOSB contracts, a contracting activity may not make a requirement available for a SDVOSB contract if: ( a ) The contracting activity otherwise would fulfill that requirement through award to Federal Prison Industries, Inc. under 18 U.S.C. 4124 or 4125, or to Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act participating non-profit agencies for the blind and severely disabled, under 41 U.S.C. 8501 *et seq.,* as amended; or
( b ) An 8(a) BD program participant currently is performing that requirement or SBA has accepted that requirement for performance under the authority of the section 8(a) BD program, unless SBA has consented to release of the requirement from the section 8(a) BD program.
EXHIBIT 23.1













Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm






We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-40333, 333-40457, 333-40459, 333-40461, 333-43622, 333-67440, 333-97179, 333-97181, 333-136671, and 333-156039 and Form S-3 Nos. 333-68202, 333-86440, 333-108521, and 333-150953) of Hypercom Corporation of our reports dated March 12, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Hypercom Corporation, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Hypercom Corporation, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2009.







/s/ Ernst & Young LLP





Phoenix, Arizona


March 12, 2010
### §415. Information to members of provisions of chapter

Every labor organization shall inform its members concerning the provisions of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 86–257, title I, §105, Sept. 14, 1959, 73 Stat. 523.)
#### § 67.1 Purpose of part.

The purpose of this part is to establish procedures implementing the provisions of section 110 of Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973.
# Publicatieblad C 18A/25 j

| | ISSN 1725-2474 |
| --- | --- |
| Publicatieblad
  van de Europese Unie | C 18A |
| | |
| Uitgave in de Nederlandse taal | Mededelingen en bekendmakingen | 49e jaargang25 januari 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2474

Publicatieblad

van de Europese Unie

C 18A

Uitgave in de Nederlandse taal

Mededelingen en bekendmakingen

49e jaargang25 januari 2006

---

| Nummer | Inhoud | Bladzijde |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Bekendmakingen |
| | Europese Autoriteit voor voedselveiligheid |
| 2006/C 018A/1 | Oproep tot het indienen van blijken van belangstelling voor het wetenschappelijk comité en de wetenschappelijke panels van de Europese Autoriteit voor voedselveiligheid (De uiterste termijn voor indiening van blijken van belangstelling is verlengd tot 17 februari 2006) | 1 |

Nummer

Inhoud

Bladzijde

III   Bekendmakingen

Europese Autoriteit voor voedselveiligheid

2006/C 018A/1

Oproep tot het indienen van blijken van belangstelling voor het wetenschappelijk comité en de wetenschappelijke panels van de Europese Autoriteit voor voedselveiligheid (De uiterste termijn voor indiening van blijken van belangstelling is verlengd tot 17 februari 2006)

1

| NL | |
| --- | --- |

NL

---

III Bekendmakingen

Europese Autoriteit voor voedselveiligheid

| 25.1.2006 | NL | Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie | CA 18/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2006

NL

Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie

CA 18/1

---

OPROEP TOT HET INDIENEN VAN BLIJKEN VAN BELANGSTELLING VOOR HET WETENSCHAPPELIJK COMITÉ EN DE WETENSCHAPPELIJKE PANELS VAN DE EUROPESE AUTORITEIT VOOR VOEDSELVEILIGHEID

(De uiterste termijn voor indiening van blijken van belangstelling is verlengd tot 17 februari 2006)

(2006/C 18 A/01)

Zoals is bekendgemaakt in het
  Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie C 289 A van 22 november 2005, bladzijde 6, is de sluitingsdatum voor indiening van de sollicitaties 7 januari 2006. Daar zich echter kennelijk bij herhaling problemen hebben voorgedaan bij de indiening van de onlinesollicitaties, in het bijzonder in de laatste week van de sollicitatieperiode, is de uiterste termijn voor indiening van blijken van belangstelling verlengd tot vrijdag 17 februari 2006.

Deze oproep is bestemd voor wetenschappers die in aanmerking willen komen voor lidmaatschap van het wetenschappelijk comité of een wetenschappelijk panel van de Europese Autoriteit voor voedselveiligheid, opgericht bij Verordening (EG) nr. 178/2002 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 28 januari 2002 tot vaststelling van de algemene beginselen en voorschriften van de levensmiddelenwetgeving, tot oprichting van een Europese Autoriteit voor voedselveiligheid en tot vaststelling van procedures voor voedselveiligheidsaangelegenheden. De Autoriteit is gevestigd in Parma, in Italië.

---
Editorial Note on Part 120
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 120 appear at 72 FR 50039, Aug. 30, 2007.

§ 120.630 Qualifications to be a Pool Assembler. ( a ) *Application to become Pool Assembler.* The application to become a Pool Assembler is available from the D/FA. In order to qualify as a Pool Assembler, an entity must send the application to the D/FA, with an application fee, and certify that it: ( 1 ) Is regulated by the appropriate agency as defined in section 3(a)(34)(G) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(34)(G));
( 2 ) Meets all financial and other applicable requirements of its regulatory authority and the Government Securities Act of 1986, as amended (Pub. L. 99-571, 100 Stat. 3208);
( 3 ) Has the financial capability to assemble acceptable and eligible guaranteed loan portions in sufficient quantity to support the issuance of Pool Certificates; and
( 4 ) Is in good standing with SBA (as the D/FA determines in his or her discretion), and is Satisfactory with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) if it is a national bank, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation if it is a bank not regulated by the OCC, or the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) if it is a member as determined by SBA.
( 5 ) For any pool assembler that is an SBA Lender, that the SBA Lender has satisfactory SBA performance, as determined by SBA in its discretion. The Lender's Risk Rating, among other factors, will be considered in determining satisfactory SBA performance. Other factors may include, but are not limited to, review/examination assessments, historical performance measures (like default rate, purchase rate and loss rate), loan volume to the extent that it impacts performance measures, and other performance related measurements and information (such as contribution toward SBA mission).
( b ) *Approval by SBA.* An entity may not submit Pool applications to the FTA until SBA has approved the application to become a Pool Assembler.
( c ) *Conduct of business by Pool Assembler.* An entity continues to qualify as a Pool Assembler so long as it: ( 1 ) Meets the eligibility standards in paragraph (a) of this section;
( 2 ) Conducts its business in accordance with SBA regulations and accepted securities or banking industry practices, ethics, and standards; and
( 3 ) Maintains its books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles or in accordance with the guidelines of the regulatory body governing its activities.
[61 FR 3235, Jan. 31, 1996, as amended at 73 FR 75517, Dec. 11, 2008; 82 FR 39503, Aug. 21, 2017]