alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1832. Wages, supplies, and other working arrangements

#### (a) Payment of wages

Each farm labor contractor, agricultural employer, and agricultural association which employs any seasonal agricultural worker shall pay the wages owed to such worker when due.

#### (b) Purchase of goods or services by worker

No farm labor contractor, agricultural employer, or agricultural association shall require any seasonal agricultural worker to purchase any goods or services solely from such farm labor contractor, agricultural employer, or agricultural association.

#### (c) Violation of terms of working arrangement

No farm labor contractor, agricultural employer, or agricultural association shall, without justification, violate the terms of any working arrangement made by that contractor, employer, or association with any seasonal agricultural worker.

(Pub. L. 97–470, title III, §302, Jan. 14, 1983, 96 Stat. 2593.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 90 days from Jan. 14, 1983, see section 524 of Pub. L. 97–470, set out as a note under section 1801 of this title.
### §2515. New trial; stay of judgment

(a) The United States Court of Federal Claims may grant a plaintiff a new trial on any ground established by rules of common law or equity applicable as between private parties.

(b) Such court, at any time while any suit is pending before it, or after proceedings for review have been instituted, or within two years after the final disposition of the suit, may grant the United States a new trial and stay the payment of any judgment upon satisfactory evidence, cumulative or otherwise, that any fraud, wrong, or injustice has been done the United States.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 978; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, §139(j)(2), Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 43; Pub. L. 102–572, title IX, §902(a)(1), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4516.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§281 and 282 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §§174, 175, 36 Stat. 1141).

Words "but until an order is made staying the payment of a judgment, the same shall be payable and paid as on March 3, 1911, was provided by law," in section 282 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., were omitted as surplusage.

Changes were made in phraseology.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1992—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102–572 substituted "United States Court of Federal Claims" for "United States Claims Court".

1982—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 97–164 substituted "United States Claims Court" for "Court of Claims".

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

#### Effective Date of 1992 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–572 effective Oct. 29, 1992, see section 911 of Pub. L. 102–572, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–164 effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 650 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 650

 To enable the payment of certain officers and employees of the United 
 States whose employment is authorized pursuant to a grant of deferred 
  action, deferred enforced departure, or temporary protected status.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 9, 2021

Ms. Cortez Masto (for herself, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Warren, Mr. Markey, Mr. 
 Blumenthal, Mr. Van Hollen, Ms. Smith, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Merkley, Mr. 
   Booker, Ms. Rosen, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Menendez, Mr. 
  Wyden, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Warner, Mr. Sanders, and Ms. Klobuchar) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                      Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To enable the payment of certain officers and employees of the United 
 States whose employment is authorized pursuant to a grant of deferred 
  action, deferred enforced departure, or temporary protected status.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``American Dream Employment Act of 
2021''.

SEC. 2. CERTAIN FEDERAL EMPLOYEES WHO ARE BENEFICIARIES OF DEFERRED 
              ACTION, DEFERRED ENFORCED DEPARTURE, OR TEMPORARY 
              PROTECTED STATUS AUTHORIZED TO BE PAID.

    Section 704 of title VII of division E of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``eligible; or'' and inserting 
        ``eligible;'';
            (2) by striking ``allegiance to the United States:'' and 
        inserting ``allegiance to the United States; or (5) is a person 
        who is employed by the House of Representatives or the Senate, 
        and holds a current employment authorization document that was 
        issued pursuant to a grant of deferred action, including under 
        the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program of the 
        Secretary of Homeland Security, established pursuant to the 
        memorandum from the Secretary of Homeland Security entitled 
        `Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to 
        Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children', dated 
        June 15, 2012, deferred enforced departure, or temporary 
        protected status under section 244 of the Immigration and 
        Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1254a):''.
                                 <all>
```
-  Home 
-  Aircraft 
-  Aircraft Certification 
-  Design Approvals 

# In This Section

                      -  Overview 
                      -  Engines and Propellers                          -  Issues List 
                      -  Field Approvals & Supplemental Type Certificates (STCs) 
                      -  Rotorcraft 
                      -  Small Airplanes 
                      -  Supplemental Type Certificates 
                      -  Transport Airplanes 

# Supplemental Type Certificates

A supplemental type certificate (STC) is a type certificate (TC) issued when an applicant has received FAA approval to modify an aeronautical product from its original design.  The STC, which incorporates by reference the related TC, approves not only the modification but also how that modification affects the original design.

For complex design modifications, the Aircraft Certification Office may ask that you follow the Original Design Approval Process.

## STC

                  - Application-to-Issuance                      - Establishment of Certification Basis
                    - An  STC  Will Be Issued
                    - An  STC  Will Not Be Issued 
                  - Installation on the Airplane (STC not your own)
                  - Regulations & Policies
                  - STC Holder Responsibilities
                  - Supplemental Type Certificates & Field Approvals – Guidance for Small Airplanes
                  - Variants  – “One-Only” and “Non-Interference”

Supplemental Type Certificates - database of approved STCs in the FAA's Dynamic Regulatory System (DRS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

 CASE NO.: 20-CV-81205-RAR 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS GROUP, 

INC. d/b/a/ PAR FUNDING, et al., 

____________________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION 

THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff, Securities and Exchange 

Commission’s Unopposed Motion. The Court having reviewed the motion and the record and 

finding good cause for the Plaintiff’s request, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion IS GRANTED. Plaintiffs initial Reply (DE 

1339) is stricken and the Clerk of Court is directed to remove DE 1339 from the record and the 

Amended Reply filed August 4, 2022 (DE 1341) is deemed timely filed . 

DONE and ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this ____ day of August 2022. 

 ________________________________ 

 RODOLFO A. RUIZ II 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Copies to: All Counsel of Record 

 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1361-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/17/2022 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          26,049
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   56,692
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                93,400
<PP&E>                                          71,770
<DEPRECIATION>                                  54,750
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,567,064
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,313
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        49,696
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,402,123
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,567,064
<SALES>                                        118,130
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               208,723
<CGS>                                          133,662
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  133,662
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 74,561
<INCOME-TAX>                                    26,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             48,261
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 55,329
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   103,590
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6325
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ALBERTO CAIRA, a/k/a Rangeen Khan, a/k/a Claude Bernard, a/k/a Jorge Miladeh, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., District Judge. (CR-86-5, CR-86-162, CA-94-3014-2-8) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Alberto Caira, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Jennings Caughman, Assistant United States Attorney, C olumbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), as amended by Act of Apr. 24, 1996, 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 (Law. Co-op. Advance Sheet June 1996). We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny acertificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Caira , Nos. CR-86-5;CR-86-162; CA-94-3014-2-8 (D.S.C. Jan. 8, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion to expedite the appeal in light of this disposition.We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### § 18.405 Penalty procedures.

Agencies shall impose and collect civil penalties pursuant to the provisions of the Program Fraud and Civil Remedies Act, 31 U.S.C. 3803 (except subsection (c)), 3804, 3805, 3806, 3807, 3808, and 3812, insofar as these provisions are not inconsistent with the requirements herein.
Deloitte & Touche LLP

Certified Public Accountants

Suite 400

200 South Biscayne Boulevard

Miami. Florida 33131-2310

Tel: (305) 372-3100

Fax: (305) 372-3160	

www.us.deloitte.com**	
	

	Deloitte
& **Touche**
 
**INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT**
 

To the Board of Directors of

Lennar Partners, Inc.:

We have examined management's assertion about Lennar Partners, Inc.'s (the "Company") compliance with the minimum servicing standards identified in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's *Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers*(USAP) as applicable to the special servicing of commercial and multifamily mortgage loans as of and for the year ended December 31, 2001 included in the accompanying management assertion. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with those minimum-servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the entity's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December 31, 2001 is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 
*Deloitte & Touche LLP

February 15, 2002

 ***
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAtomic oxygen degradation of Intelsat 4-type solar array interconnects: Laboratory investigationsA Hughes 506 type communication satellite belonging to the Intelsat organization was marooned in low Earth orbit on March 14, 1990, following failure of the Titan third stage to separate properly. The satellite, Intelsat VI, was designed for service in geosynchronous orbit and contains several material configurations which are susceptible to attack by atomic oxygen. Analysis showed the silver foil interconnects in the satellite photovoltaic array to be the key materials issue because the silver is exposed directly to the atomic oxygen ram flux. The results are reported of atomic oxygen degradation testing of Intelsat VI type silver foil interconnects both as virgin material and in a configured solar cell element. Test results indicate that more than 80 pct. of the original thickness of silver in the Intelsat VI solar array interconnects should remain after completion of the proposed Space Shuttle rescue and/or reboost mission.Document ID19910011973Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsKoontz, S. L.*(NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center Houston, TX., United States)*Cross, J. B.*(Los Alamos National Lab. NM., United States)*Hoffbauer, M. A.*(Los Alamos National Lab. NM., United States)*Kirkendahl, T. D.*(Communications Satellite Corp. Clarksburg, MD., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMarch 1, 1991Subject CategoryMetallic MaterialsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-102175NAS 1.15:102175S-625Accession Number91N21286Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 506-43-00Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910011973.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
### §§1201, 1202. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 1201, Pub. L. 102–166, title III, §301, Nov. 21, 1991, 105 Stat. 1088; Pub. L. 103–283, title III, §312(f)(1), July 22, 1994, 108 Stat. 1446; Pub. L. 104–1, title V, §504(a)(1), Jan. 23, 1995, 109 Stat. 40, which provided for short title of chapter as the "Government Employee Rights Act of 1991", provided purpose of chapter as establishing procedures to protect the rights of certain government employees with respect to their public employment, and defined "violation" for purposes of chapter, was transferred to section 2000e–16a of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.

Section 1202, Pub. L. 102–166, title III, §302, Nov. 21, 1991, 105 Stat. 1088; Pub. L. 104–1, title V, §504(a)(1), Jan. 23, 1995, 109 Stat. 40, which prohibited certain discriminatory practices affecting State employees, and provided for remedies, was transferred to section 2000e–16b of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44661

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

JERIME AUSTIN BALDWIN

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 572

Filed: September 5, 2017

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho,

Minidoka County. Hon. Jonathan P. Brody , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen years, affirmed

.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Jerime Austin Baldwin pled guilty to one count of sexual abuse of a child under the age

of sixteen years , Idaho Code § 18

- 1506(1)(b) . The district court imposed a unified sentence of

fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years

. The district court retained

jurisdiction, and Baldwin was sent to participate in the rider program.

After Baldwin completed his rider, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. Baldwin

appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive.2 Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both o ur standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-
15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Baldwin ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         337,691
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   64,211
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    152,888
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               579,790
<PP&E>                                         261,370
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 863,234
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          541,707
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              212
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       345,554
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   863,234
<SALES>                                        493,754
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               493,754
<CGS>                                          453,434
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  453,434
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               747,434
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,538
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (719,652)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (719,652)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (719,652)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.34)
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.3014 Originating goods. Except as otherwise provided in this subpart and General Note 34, HTSUS, a good imported into the customs territory of the United States will be considered an originating good under the CTPA only if: ( a ) The good is wholly obtained or produced entirely in the territory of one or both of the Parties;
( b ) The good is produced entirely in the territory of one or both of the Parties and: ( 1 ) Each non-originating material used in the production of the good undergoes an applicable change in tariff classification specified in General Note 34, HTSUS, and the good satisfies all other applicable requirements of General Note 34, HTSUS; or
( 2 ) The good otherwise satisfies any applicable regional value content or other requirements specified in General Note 34, HTSUS, and satisfies all other applicable requirements of General Note 34, HTSUS; or
( c ) The good is produced entirely in the territory of one or both of the Parties exclusively from originating materials.
§ 128.406 Are there VOSB or SDVOSB contracting opportunities at or below the simplified acquisition threshold? ( a ) For VA procurements, a contracting officer may award at or below the simplified acquisition threshold as set forth in the VAAR.
( b ) For non-VA procurements, if a SDVOSB requirement is at or below the simplified acquisition threshold, the contracting officer may set aside the requirement for consideration among SDVOSBs using simplified acquisition procedures or may award a sole source contract to an SDVOSB.