alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1666

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that discontinuance of 

veterans’ disability compensation upon the death of a veteran shall be 

effective as of the date of death of the veteran rather than the last 

day of the month preceding the veteran’s death. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 8, 2003

Mr. BOYD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide that 

discontinuance of veterans’ disability compensation upon 

the death of a veteran shall be effective as of the date 

of death of the veteran rather than the last day of 

the month preceding the veteran’s death.

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

3 SECTION 1. EFFECTIVE DATE OF DISCONTINUANCE OF 

4 VETERANS’ DISABILITY COMPENSATION. 

5 (a) PRORATING OF BENEFITS FOR MONTH OF

6 DEATH.—Section 5112 (b)(1) of title 38, United States 

7 Code, is amended by inserting before the semicolon the 
2

•HR 1666 IH 

1 following: ‘‘, except that in the case of discontinuation of 

2 compensation by reason of death of the payee, such effec3 tive date shall be the day before such death occurs’’. 

4 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT FOR COMMENCMENT

5 OF DIC.—Section 5110(d)(1) of such title is amended by 

6 striking ‘‘first day of the month in which the death oc7 curred’’ and inserting ‘‘date of death’’.

Æ
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10842 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10843 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10844 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10845 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10846 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10847 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10848 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10849 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10850 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10851 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10852 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10853 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10854 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10855 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10856 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10857 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10858 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10859 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10860 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10861 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10862 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10863 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10864 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10865 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10866 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10867 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10868 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10869 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10870 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10871 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10872 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10873 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10874 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10875 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10876 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10877 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10878 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10879 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10880 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10881 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10882 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10883 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10884 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10885 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10886 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10887 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10888 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10889 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10890 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10891 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10892 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10893 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10894 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10895 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10896 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10897 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10898 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10899 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10900 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10901 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10902 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10903 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10904 1972
HeinOnline -- 37 Fed. Reg. 10905 1972
#### § 353.302 Retention protections.

An injured employee enjoys no special protection in a reduction in force. Separation by reduction in force or for cause while on compensation means the individual has no restoration rights.
### **CHAPTER 36—INTERNATIONAL STAGE**

Sec.
361.
Receiving Office.
362.
International Searching Authority and International Preliminary Examining Authority.
363.
International application designating the United States: Effect.
364.
International stage: Procedure.
365.
Right of priority; benefit of the filing date of a prior application.
366.
Withdrawn international application.
367.
Actions of other authorities: Review.
368.
Secrecy of certain inventions; filing international applications in foreign countries.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1986**—Pub. L. 99–616, §3, Nov. 6, 1986, 100 Stat. 3485, amended item 362 generally.
### §543. Employment of civil engineers on western and northwestern rivers

The Chief of Engineers may, with the approval of the Secretary of the Army, employ such civil engineers, not exceeding five in number, for the purpose of executing the surveys and improvements of western and northwestern rivers, ordered by Congress, as may be necessary to the proper and diligent prosecution of the same; and the persons so employed may be allowed a reasonable compensation for their services, not to exceed the sum of $3,000 a year.

(R.S. §5253; July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, §205(a), 61 Stat. 501.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

R.S. §5253 derived from Res. Mar. 29, 1867, No. 27, 15 Stat. 28.

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

#### Change of Name

Department of War designated Department of the Army and title of Secretary of War changed to Secretary of the Army by section 205(a) of act July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, 61 Stat. 501. Section 205(a) of act July 26, 1947, was repealed by section 53 of act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 641. Section 1 of act Aug. 10, 1956, enacted "Title 10, Armed Forces" which in sections 3010 to 3013 continued Department of the Army under administrative supervision of Secretary of the Army.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of certain functions insofar as they pertain to Air Force, and to extent that they were not previously transferred to Secretary of the Air Force and Department of the Air Force from Secretary of the Army and Department of the Army, see Secretary of Defense Transfer Order No. 40, July 22, 1949.
<Page>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.1

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption
"Experts-Independent Auditors" and to the use of our report dated February 19,
2004 in the Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement (File No. 333-112575)
and related Prospectus of Claymore Securities Defined Portfolios, Series 171.


                                         /s/ Grant Thornton LLP
                                         ----------------------
                                         GRANT THORNTON LLP


Chicago, Illinois
February 19, 2004
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARTHA CALMO PABLO, AKA Yuridia 

Diaz Perez,

 Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 13-72909

Agency No. A200-566-208

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 22, 2015**

Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. 

Martha Calmo Pablo, native and a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions 

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from 

an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 1 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 13-72909

of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We 

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the 

agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility 

determinations created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 

1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination 

based on the inconsistencies regarding when Calmo suffered a miscarriage and 

whether she told her parents about a threatening phone call from her attacker. See

id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the “totality of 

circumstances”). Calmo’s explanations for the inconsistencies do not compel a 

contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in 

the absence of credible testimony, Calmo’s asylum and withholding of removal 

claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Finally, Calmo’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same 

evidence the agency found not credible, and Calmo does not point to any other 

evidence that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be 

tortured if returned to Guatemala. See id. at 1156-57. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### Enterprise Metal Bedstead Company, Plaintiff, v. Gately Furniture Company, Defendant.

Motion for stay denied, with ten dollars costs. Present — Jenks, P. J., Carr, Stapleton, Mills and Rich, JJ.
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET

Date Printed: Apr- 10, 2007 14:22

PAPER NUMBER:

ACTION OFFICE:

AUTHOR:

AFFILIATION:

ADDRESSEE:

SUBJECT:

ACTION:

DISTRIBUTION:

LETTER DATE:

ACKNOWLEDGED

SPECIAL HANDLING:

LTR-07-0233

EDO

LOGGING DATE: 04/10/2007

EDO

DE'DMRS

DEDR

DEDIA

GOV Haley Barbour

MS-GOV

Dale Klein

Energy Policy Act of 2005

Appropriate

RF

04/06/2007

No

Made publicly available in ADAMS via EDO/DPC

NOTES:

FILE LOCATION: ADAMS

DATE DUE: DATE SIGNED:
04i,'1007 08:33 FAX 801 359 37,11 GOVERNOR BARBOUR

3STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

OFFICE OF T14E GOVERNOR

IAL&LY BARBOUR

Co\NJ..No• April 6, 2007

The Honorable Dale E. Klein, Ph.D.

Chairman

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555

Dear Dr. Klein,

The purpose of this letter is to comply with the provisions of Section 651 (e) of the

Energy Policy Act of 2005, regarding the licensing of certain naturally occurring and

accelerator produced radioactive materials now defined as byproduct material in Sections,

I1 e(3) and 1 Ie(4) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

In 1962, the State of Mississippi entered into an Agreement with the Commission under

Section 274b of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Under that Agreement, the

State of Mississippi licenses byproduct material as defined in Section 1 le(l) of the

Atomic Energy Act. In addition, Mississippi licenses the naturally occurring and

accelerator produced radioactive materials now defined as byproduct material.

Our program for licensing the new byproduct material is not separate and distinct from

the program for licensing 11 e(1) byproduct material, and no changes have been made to

the licensing program that would impact the previous IMPEP finding of adequacy.

Further, we intend to continue to license the new byproduct material under this same

program.

Accordingly, I certify to the Commission that the State of Mississippi has a program for

licensing by-product material, as defined in paragraph (3) or (4) of Section I le of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, that is adequate to protect the public health and

safety, and that the State intends to continue to implement our regulatory responsibility

with respect to the byproduct material.

This certification is effective on the date of publication of the NRC's "Plan for the

Transition of Regulatory Authority Resulting from the Expanded Definition of Byproduct

Material."

Si r 

y,

Hae Bar

ItIRB: mt

359-315) * AX: MCI) %59-3741 - v ,,rbr',ur.m-',m

.19205 •T LErH1,,E: (& I " r n

P, 02
§ 534.408 Restrictions on premium pay and compensatory time. ( a ) Under 5 U.S.C. 5541(2)(xvi) and 5 CFR 550.101(b)(18), members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) are excluded from premium pay, including overtime pay.
( b ) Since SES members are not eligible for overtime pay, they also are not eligible for compensatory time in lieu of overtime pay for work performed as an SES member. SES members are eligible, however, for compensatory time off for religious purposes under 5 U.S.C. 5550a and 5 CFR part 550, subpart J.
[60 FR 6390, Feb. 2, 1995. Redesignated and amended at 69 FR 70362, 70367, Dec. 6, 2004]
### §20915. Duration of registration requirement

#### (a) Full registration period

A sex offender shall keep the registration current for the full registration period (excluding any time the sex offender is in custody or civilly committed) unless the offender is allowed a reduction under subsection (b). The full registration period is—

(1) 15 years, if the offender is a tier I sex offender;

(2) 25 years, if the offender is a tier II sex offender; and

(3) the life of the offender, if the offender is a tier III sex offender.

#### (b) Reduced period for clean record

#### (1) Clean record

The full registration period shall be reduced as described in paragraph (3) for a sex offender who maintains a clean record for the period described in paragraph (2) by—

(A) not being convicted of any offense for which imprisonment for more than 1 year may be imposed;

(B) not being convicted of any sex offense;

(C) successfully completing any periods of supervised release, probation, and parole; and

(D) successfully completing of 1 an appropriate sex offender treatment program certified by a jurisdiction or by the Attorney General.

#### (2) Period

In the case of—

(A) a tier I sex offender, the period during which the clean record shall be maintained is 10 years; and

(B) a tier III sex offender adjudicated delinquent for the offense which required registration in a sex registry under this subchapter, the period during which the clean record shall be maintained is 25 years.

#### (3) Reduction

In the case of—

(A) a tier I sex offender, the reduction is 5 years;

(B) a tier III sex offender adjudicated delinquent, the reduction is from life to that period for which the clean record under paragraph (2) is maintained.

(Pub. L. 109–248, title I, §115, July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 595.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This subchapter, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(B), was in the original "this title", meaning title I of Pub. L. 109–248, July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 590, known as the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. For complete classification of title I to the Code, see Short Title of 2006 Act note set out under section 10101 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 16915 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

1 So in original. The word "of" probably should not appear.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 27, 2014

h0519 

# Order

Clerk May 27, 2014

148823

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 148823

COA: 319261

Kalamazoo CC: 2012

- 001926

- FC

DUNCAN ERIC WILLIAMS, JR.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 16, 2014

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 29, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00251

- CV

Herbert Lawrence POLINARD , Jr., Appellant

v.

Jo Ann KARAMBIS , Margaret Comparin Karambis, Ronaldo Dunagan, Lynda C. Spence, and eXp Realty LLC, Appellees

From the 166th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- CI

- 11887

Hono rable Antonia Arteaga , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

After consideration, we GRANT Appellant’s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s Brief and Unopposed Motion to File Response to Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss, and ORDER appellant to file his brief and response by November 6, 2021.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 29th day of October, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
I, Eyal Kolka, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of TopSpin Medical, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;     (b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986];     (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and     (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: August 15, 2007 /s/ Eyal Kolka   Eyal Kolka   Chief Financial Officer
§ 575.207 Agency relocation incentive plan and approval levels. ( a ) Before paying relocation incentives under this subpart, an agency must establish a relocation incentive plan. This plan must include the following elements: ( 1 ) The designation of officials with authority to review and approve payment of relocation incentives (subject to paragraph (b) of this section) and the designation of officials with authority to waive the repayment of a relocation incentive under § 575.211(h);
( 2 ) The categories of employees who are prohibited from receiving relocation incentives;
( 3 ) Required documentation for determining that a position (or group of positions) is likely to be difficult to fill;
( 4 ) Any requirements for determining the amount of a relocation incentive;
( 5 ) The payment methods that may be authorized;
( 6 ) Requirements governing service agreements which, at a minimum, must include— ( i ) The criteria for determining the length of a service period under a service agreement;
( ii ) The conditions for terminating a service agreement; and
( iii ) The obligations of the agency and the employee, as applicable, if an agency terminates a service agreement; and
( 7 ) Documentation and recordkeeping requirements sufficient to allow reconstruction of the action and fulfill the requirements of §§ 575.212 and 575.213.
( b ) ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, an authorized agency official who is at least one level higher than the employee's supervisor must review and approve each determination to pay a relocation incentive, unless there is no official at a higher level in the agency. The authorized agency official must review and approve the relocation incentive determination before the agency pays the incentive to the employee.
( 2 ) The higher level approval required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section is not needed when approving coverage of individual employees under a previously approved relocation incentive authorization if the case-by-case approval requirement is waived under § 575.208(b).
( c ) Unless the head of the agency determines otherwise, an agency relocation incentive plan must apply uniformly across the agency.
[70 FR 25743, May 13, 2005, as amended at 72 FR 67839, Dec. 3, 2007]
#### § 319.302 Individual qualifications.

Agency heads are delegated authority to approve the qualifications of individuals appointed to SL and ST positions. The agency head must determine that the individual meets the qualifications standards for the position to which appointed.
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-10-000023029-JUN-201108:40 AM
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1610

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

120 East Ritchie Avenue in Marceline, Missouri, as the ‘‘Walt Disney 

Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 3, 2003

Mr. GRAVES (for himself, Mr. SKELTON, Mrs. EMERSON, Mr. AKIN, Mr. 

CLAY, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. HULSHOF, Ms. MCCARTHY of Missouri, and Mr. 

GEPHARDT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 120 East Ritchie Avenue in Marceline, 

Missouri, as the ‘‘Walt Disney Post Office Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. WALT DISNEY POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) REDESIGNATION.—The facility of the United 

5 States Postal Service located at 120 East Ritchie Avenue 

6 in Marceline, Missouri, and known as the Marceline Main 

7 Office, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Walt Disney 

8 Post Office Building’’. 
2

•HR 1610 IH 

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the Walt Disney Post Of5 fice Building.

Æ