alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §3141. Definitions

In this subchapter, the following definitions apply:

(1) Federal government.—The term "Federal Government" has the same meaning that the term "United States" had in the Act of March 3, 1931 (ch. 411, 46 Stat. 1494) (known as the Davis-Bacon Act).

(2) Wages, scale of wages, wage rates, minimum wages, and prevailing wages.—The terms "wages", "scale of wages", "wage rates", "minimum wages", and "prevailing wages" include—

(A) the basic hourly rate of pay; and

(B) for medical or hospital care, pensions on retirement or death, compensation for injuries or illness resulting from occupational activity, or insurance to provide any of the forgoing, for unemployment benefits, life insurance, disability and sickness insurance, or accident insurance, for vacation and holiday pay, for defraying the costs of apprenticeship or other similar programs, or for other bona fide fringe benefits, but only where the contractor or subcontractor is not required by other federal, state, or local law to provide any of those benefits, the amount of—

(i) the rate of contribution irrevocably made by a contractor or subcontractor to a trustee or to a third person under a fund, plan, or program; and

(ii) the rate of costs to the contractor or subcontractor that may be reasonably anticipated in providing benefits to laborers and mechanics pursuant to an enforceable commitment to carry out a financially responsible plan or program which was communicated in writing to the laborers and mechanics affected.

(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1150; Pub. L. 109–284, §6(11), Sept. 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 1213.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 3141(1) | (no source). | |
| 3141(2) | 40:276a(b) (1st par. words before proviso). | Mar. 3, 1931, ch. 411, §1(b) (1st par. words before proviso), as added Pub. L. 88–349, §1, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 239. |

Section

Clause (1) is added for clarity.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Davis-Bacon Act, referred to in par. (1), is act of Mar. 3, 1931, ch. 411, 46 Stat. 1494, which was classified generally to sections 276a to 276a–5 of former Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works, and was repealed and reenacted as sections 3141–3144, 3146, and 3147 of this title by Pub. L. 107–217, §§1, 6(b), Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1062, 1304. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

#### Amendments

2006—Par. (1). Pub. L. 109–284 substituted "1494)" for "1494".
### Part L—[Repealed]

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 106–310, div. B, title XXXI, §3106(n), Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1179, struck out heading for part L "Services for Children of Substance Abusers".

Pub. L. 103–43, title XX, §2008(i)(2)(B)(ii), June 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 213, redesignated part M "Services for Children of Substance Abusers" as L. Former part L "Health Care Services in the Home" redesignated K.

Pub. L. 101–616, title I, §101(a)(1), Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 3279, redesignated part K "Health Care Services in the Home" as L.
Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Beeston Enterprises Ltd, a Nevada corporation (the Company), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Brian Smith, President/Treasurer/CEO/CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my knowledge:  (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/ Brian Smith Brian Smith, President, Treasurer, CEO, CFO Dated:  May 15, 2008
### Part W—Parkinson's and Related Disorders
§ 842.1004 Evidence. ( a ) The agency head's determination under § 842.1003(a) that a position is a primary position must be based solely on the official position description of the position in question, and any other official description of duties and qualifications. The official documentation for the position must establish that it satisfies the requirements defined in § 842.1002.
( b ) A determination under § 842.1003(b) must be based on the official position description and any other evidence deemed appropriate by the agency head for making the determination.
( c ) If an employee is in a position not subject to the one-half percent higher withholding rate of 5 U.S.C. 8422(a)(3), and the employee does not, within 6 months of entering the position formally and in writing seek a determination from the employing agency that his or her service is properly covered by the higher withholding rate, the agency head's determination that the service was not so covered at the time of the service is presumed to be correct. This presumption may be rebutted by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee was unaware of his or her status or was prevented by cause beyond his or her control from requesting that the official status be changed at the time the service was performed.
SCWC-16-0000692

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

SHUAN E. FLEETWOOD, also known as SHAUN FLEETWOOD,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-16-0000692; CR. NO. 10-1-1668)

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant’s application for writ

of certiorari, filed on January 2, 2019, is hereby accepted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no oral argument will be

heard in this case. Any party may, within ten days and pursuant

to Rule 34(c) of the Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure, move

for retention of oral argument. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 12, 2019.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-16-0000692

12-FEB-2019

01:34 PM
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Juan Heredia, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 497]

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.), rendered May 10, 2005, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the second degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty in full satisfaction of a four-count indictment to burglary in the second degree. He was thereafter sentenced in accordance with the negotiated plea agreement as a second felony offender to a five-year prison term followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals, contending that his plea was involuntary and that his sentence should be reduced in the interest of justice. We disagree and affirm.

*1112Defendant’s failure to move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction renders his challenge to the voluntariness of his plea unpreserved for our review *(see People v Adams,*26 AD3d 597, 598 [2006]). Even if we were to consider the claim, we would find it unavailing. Defendant indicated during his plea allocution that he understood his rights and the ramifications of pleading guilty, that he was not being coerced into entering a plea and that he had no questions for either his attorney or County Court concerning the negotiated plea agreement. Defendant then freely admitted to the underlying facts of the crime and his guilt in connection therewith. Under the circumstances, we conclude that defendant’s plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary *(see People v Bennett,*24 AD3d 975, 975 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 831 [2006]; *People v Kearney,*14 AD3d 938, 938-939 [2005], *lv denied*4 NY3d 854 [2005]).

Defendant’s assertion that his sentence should be modified is equally unfounded. The agreed-upon sentence was the minimum allowable by law *(see*Penal Law § 70.06 [6] [b]; *see also People v Deale,*29 AD3d 602 [2006]; *People v Abdullah,*23 AD3d 692 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 773 [2006]).

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
No: 13-106 December 27, 2013

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200 

NRC, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Issue Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for Proposed South Carolina Reactors

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has concluded there are no environmental impacts to 

preclude issuing Combined Licenses (COLs) to build and operate two reactors at the proposed Lee 

Nuclear Station site in Cherokee County, S.C. The NRC developed the Lee project’s Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) jointly with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston 

District. The Corps will use the document’s information in considering its federal permit decision in 

accordance with the Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. 

Issuing the statement is part of the overall Lee COL review. The staff continues working on the 

Lee project’s final safety evaluation report, which will include a review by the NRC’s Advisory 

Committee on Reactor Safeguards, an independent group of nuclear safety experts. The NRC’s five 

Commissioners will conduct a separate mandatory hearing regarding the application and the staff’s 

review, when completed. 

While all of these review activities continue, a Commission Order from August 2012 directs the 

staff to hold off on any new reactor license decisions until completion of a rulemaking and 

environmental impact statement to update the waste confidence decision, expected by September 2014. 

If the rulemaking leaves any Lee-specific issues unresolved, those issues will be addressed separately. 

All of this work must be completed before the NRC can reach a final decision on the Lee application. 

Duke Energy Carolinas submitted a COL application Dec. 12, 2007, seeking permission to 

construct and operate two AP1000 reactors at the Lee site near Gaffney, S.C. The NRC certified the 

AP1000 for U.S. use in December 2011. More information on the design’s certification review is 

available on the NRC website. 

The FEIS is available on the NRC website. The NRC staff, in cooperation with the Corps, 

started the environmental review in March 2008 by gathering community input on what issues should 

be considered. The agencies gathered additional community comments in June 2010 and issued a draft 

EIS in December 2011. The agencies met with the local community again in January 2012 for 

additional comments. 

The three-volume FEIS and Reader’s Guide are also available via the NRC’s electronic 

document database, ADAMS, under accession numbers ML13352A015 (the guide), ML13340A005, 

ML13340A006, and ML13340A007. The guide provides the public a general-language explanation of 

the proposed action and its potential environmental impacts, with computer hyperlinks to sections in the 

FEIS that can provide detailed analyses. In addition, a copy of the FEIS will be available for public 

inspection at the Cherokee County Library, located at 300 E. Rutledge Ave. in Gaffney.
### §1301. Definition

In this subchapter, the term "Council" means the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council established under section 1302(a) of this title.

(Pub. L. 111–350, §3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3691.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1301 | 41:403(17). | Pub. L. 93–400, §4(17), as added Pub. L. 108–375, title VIII, §807(b), Oct. 28, 2004, 118 Stat. 2011. |

Section
### subpart 3—additional provisions for carbon monoxide nonattainment areas
#### § 971.421 Freedom of the high seas requirements.

Each permit issued under this part must include appropriate restrictions to ensure that commercial recovery activities do not unreasonably interfere with the interests of other nations in their exercise of the freedoms of the high seas, as recognized under general principles of international law. The Administrator will consider the factors in § 971.403 in establishing these restrictions.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Kozicky, Appellant.

*864Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and Mac Crate, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2510 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2510

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 2000 Allston Way in Berkeley, California, as the ``Maudelle Shirek 
                        Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 18, 2003

   Ms. Lee introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 2000 Allston Way in Berkeley, California, as the ``Maudelle Shirek 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. MAUDELLE SHIREK POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2000 Allston Way in Berkeley, California, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Maudelle Shirek Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Maudelle 
Shirek Post Office Building.
                                 <all>
```
#### Gaar et al. v. Commonwealth ex rel. Dummit, Attorney General.

October 24, 1947.

Lawrence F. Speekman, Judge.

W. S. Heidenberg, 'W. Clarké Otte, Luther M. Roberts, Brown *&*Eldred and Eli H. Brown for appellants.

*272Eldon S. Dummit, Attorney General, Frank A. Ropke and Charles E. Keller for appellee.

Opinion of the Court by

Stanley, Commissioner

—Affirming.

This case is substantially the same as Goose v. Commonwealth, 305 Ky. 644, 205 S. W. 2d 326. The handbook and other forms of gambling operations were conducted in the name of “Downs Cafe,” located at 3033 S. Fourth Avenue in Louisville.

Earl Gaar, Sr. (sometimes spelled Garr), and Earl Gaar, Jr., own the property and jointly operate it. The saloon license is in the names of both men. They, Nick Stockard, alias James Smith; Michael Joyce, Jr., alias Mike Joyce; Thomas Joseph Joyce; Nathaniel Montgomery, alias Skip Montgomery, and Charles Edwards have been permanently enjoined from using the premises for the unlawful purposes stated in the Goose opinion. It is as clearly a public nuisance as that establishment. As in that case, the reputations of the place and the men as lawless were established. There was no sort of factual defense. It was stipulated and agreed that there was “ticker service” and a so-called “dry line” furnished the premises. We are not advised what a “dry line” is, but it is agreed both instruments are used for the dissemination of racing information and news concerning baseball, football and other sporting events.

Upon the authority of the Goose case, this judgment is affirmed.
#### § 28.210 Reporting.

No reporting is required with respect to payments of reasonable compensation made to regularly employed officers or employees of a person.
UASolutions Group, Inc. www.uasolutionsgroup.com

2518 Auburn Drive, Cocoa, FL 32926 ( 321 )

- 261

- 2547

uasolutionsgroup@uasolutionsgroup.com August 4, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Bldg. 10A

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

RE: Summary Grant for Unmanned Vehicle University Exemption Request

Under Section 333 of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization

and Reform Act of 2012 , 4 9 U.S.C. § 44701(f), and 14 C.F.R. Part 11

Dear Sir or M adam:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA)

, 49

U.S.C. § 44701(f), and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, Unmanned Vehicle University

, a University

licensed to grant Doctorate and Master’s Degrees in Unmanned (Air, Ground, Sea and

Space) Systems Engineering and a Certificate in UAS Project Management, seeks

exemption from the following listed Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) to allow

c ommercial operation of the previously approved DJI Phantom Series and DJI Inspire

within the National Airspace System (NAS) for controlled, low

- risk, product demonstration

and flight training conducted within and under the conditions outlined within the Petition

for Exemption , or as may be established by the FAA, as required by Section 333

requirements.

Unmanned Vehicle University in the accompanying petition, seeks exemption from the

requirements of 14 C.F.R. §§ 45.27( a), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.105, 91.119(c),

91.121

, 91.151(b)

, 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and ( 2 ),and 91.417(a) and (b)

.

Unmanned Vehicle University has requested that the FAA not request public comment

on its petition because it would not set a ny precedent and because the relief requested

is identical to numerous exemptions granted previously by the FAA . 14 C.F.R. § 11.87.

In addition

, Unmanned Vehicle University will be utilizing the s ame DJI Phantom Series

and DJI Inspire pr oven technologies the FAA has already accepted and approved in over

75 percent of approved exemptions. All of the appropriate documentation to accompany

Unmanned Vehicle University Sec tion 333 Petition is included. Combined, th eir

comp rehensive Section 333 Exemption and the approvals the FAA has already given toUASolutions Group, Inc. www.uasolutionsgroup.com

2518 Auburn Drive, Cocoa, FL 32926 ( 321 )

- 261

- 2547

uasolutionsgroup@uasolutionsgroup.com their chosen products and th e technology, should provide the support necessary to the

FAA for a S ummary G rant of Unmanned Vehicle University ’ s Section 333 Petition and

expedite the process.

Kelly J. Neubecker

CEO

UASolutions Group, Inc.

CC:

Bill Crozier

Jo e Morra

Jake Troutman

Dean Griffith, Esq.

Robert Papas
Fw: clean RIA chapters for OMB, keeping emails smaller than 5MB 12/16/2011 08:00 PM

From: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

----- Forwarded by RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US on 12/16/2011 08:00 PM

----- From: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov Date: 12/16/2011 07:56 PM Subject: Fw: clean RIA chapters for OMB, keeping emails smaller than
5MB ----- Forwarded by RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US on 12/16/2011 07:56 PM

----- From: Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Amy Lamson <lamson.amy@epa.gov>,
Amanda CurryBrown/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Alex Barron/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Al McGartland/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, DavidA Evans/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jim DeMocker/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 12/16/2011 07:55 PM Subject: clean RIA chapters for OMB, keeping emails smaller than 5MB

Ron Evans Leader, Air Economics Group HEID/OAQPS/OAR/EPA Mail Drop C-439-02
919-541-5488 919-541-0839 fax

0_Executive SummaryMATS_1216_FINAL.doc

Chapter 2_ElectricPowerSectorProfile_1216_FINAL.doc

Chapter 1_IntroductionBackground_1216_FINAL.doc
### SUBCHAPTER XIII—GENERAL AUTHORITY OF COMMISSION
### §11318. Interagency support

The head of an executive agency may use amounts available to the agency for oversight, acquisition, and procurement of information technology to support jointly with other executive agencies the activities of interagency groups that are established to advise the Director of the Office of Management and Budget in carrying out the Director's responsibilities under this chapter. The use of those amounts for that purpose is subject to requirements and limitations on uses and amounts that the Director may prescribe. The Director shall prescribe the requirements and limitations during the Director's review of the executive agency's proposed budget submitted to the Director by the head of the executive agency for purposes of section 1105 of title 31.

(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1242.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 11318 | 40:1428. | Pub. L. 104–106, div. E, title LI, §5128, Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 687. |

Section
### subpart 4—medicare prescription drug discount card and transitional assistance program
Exhibit 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      In connection with the report of ProUroCare Medical Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Maurice R. Taylor,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Richard Thon, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, 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.

/s/ Maurice R. Taylor
---------------------------
Maurice R. Taylor
Chief Executive Officer
May 11, 2005



/s/ Richard Thon
---------------------------
Richard Thon
Chief Financial Officer
May 11, 2005
Exhibit 32.1

In connection with the annual report of BidGive International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the
year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
James P. Walker, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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 results of operations of the Company.

/s/  James P. Walker, Jr.James P. Walker, Jr.Chief Executive Officer

Date:  May 28, 2004
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

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.

December 4 , 2019 

# Order

Clerk Dec ember 4 , 2019

159205 (62 )

CALEB GRIFFIN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

SC: 159205

v COA: 340480

Genesee CC: 14

- 103977

- NI

SWARTZ AMBULANCE SERVICE,

Defendant

- Appellee,

and

SARAH ELIZABETH AURAND,

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion of defendant

- appellee to extend the time

for filing i t s supplemental brief is GRANTED. The supplemental brief will be accepted as

timely file d if submitted on or before December 13, 2019

.
### Part C—Hospitals, Medical Examinations, and Medical Care

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 95–626, title I, §113(a)(1), Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 3562, struck out heading "Subpart I—General Provisions".

Pub. L. 94–484, title IV, §407(a), Oct. 12, 1976, 90 Stat. 2268, added heading "Subpart I—General Provisions".