alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §15113. Reaching up scholarship program

#### (a) Program authorization

The Secretary may award grants to eligible entities, on a competitive basis, to enable the entities to carry out scholarship programs by providing vouchers for postsecondary education to direct support workers who assist individuals with developmental disabilities residing in diverse settings. The Secretary shall award the grants to pay for the Federal share of the cost of providing the vouchers.

#### (b) Eligible entity

To be eligible to receive a grant under this section, an entity shall be—

(1) an institution of higher education;

(2) a State agency; or

(3) a consortium of such institutions or agencies.

#### (c) Application requirements

To be eligible to receive a grant under this section, an eligible entity shall submit to the Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may require, including a description of—

(1) the basis for awarding the vouchers;

(2) the number of individuals to receive the vouchers; and

(3) the amount of funds that will be made available by the eligible entity to pay for the non-Federal share of the cost of providing the vouchers.

#### (d) Selection criteria

In awarding a grant under this section for a scholarship program, the Secretary shall give priority to an entity submitting an application that—

(1) specifies that individuals who receive vouchers through the program will be individuals—

(A) who are direct support workers who assist individuals with developmental disabilities residing in diverse settings, while pursuing postsecondary education; and

(B) each of whom verifies, prior to receiving the voucher, that the worker has completed 250 hours as a direct support worker in the past 90 days;

(2) states that the vouchers that will be provided through the program will be in amounts of not more than $2,000 per year;

(3) provides an assurance that the eligible entity (or another specified entity that is not a voucher recipient) will contribute the non-Federal share of the cost of providing the vouchers; and

(4) meets such other conditions as the Secretary may specify.

#### (e) Federal share

The Federal share of the cost of providing the vouchers shall be not more than 80 percent.

(Pub. L. 106–402, title III, §303, Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1735.)
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-29955 21-NOV-2011 02:58 PM

NO. SCWC-29955
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I

STATE OF HAWAI ' I, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs. SHARON LOUISE SELWYN, Respondent/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (ICA NO. 29955; CR. NO. 07-1-0547)
ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, McKenna, JJ.) The Application for Writ of Certiorari filed on October 20, 2011 by Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee, State of Hawai ' i is hereby rejected. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, November 21, 2011.

Charlene Y. Iboshi and Ricky R. Damervillefor petitioner/plaintiffappellee on the application. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. Jeffrey A. Hawk forrespondent/defendantappellant, on the application. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40659

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NDUBUIZU M. MBADIWE,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6-95-CR-58-1

- - - - - - - - - -

February 24, 1997

Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ndubuizu M. Mbadiwe appeals his conviction and sentence for

possession of cocaine with the intent to dristibute. He argues

that the district court should have granted his motion to

suppress evidence Mbadiwe argues that the district court erred

by denying his motion to suppress the cocaine that was discovered

during a search of his car because: 1) his detention exceeded

the scope of the traffic stop, making the delay unreasonable;
No. 96-40659

- 2 -

2) his consent to search was not voluntarily given; and 3) the

search was illegal because it was conducted without a warrant. 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

Government, the district court did not err by denying Mbadiwe’s

motion to suppress evidence. See United States v. Ponce, 8 F.3d

989, 995 (5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of Ranee Denton, Appellant, v Town of Brookhaven et al., Respondents.

[819 NYS2d 547]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the Town Board of the Town of Brook-haven granting the petitioner hardship relief subject to certain conditions, and seeking to compel the Planning Board of the Town of Brookhaven to approve a site plan application for Moriches Self-Storage (Exit 59), and to compel the Building Department of the Town of Brookhaven to issue a building permit, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Loughlin, J.), dated March 18, 2005, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Generally, “[a] court will apply the zoning ordinance currently in existence at the time a decision is rendered unless ‘special facts’ are present to demonstrate that the municipality acted in bad faith and unduly delayed acting upon an applica*396tion while the zoning law was being changed . . . [T]here are no special facts in this case that would warrant an exception to the general rule” *(Matter of Greene v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Islip,*25 AD3d 612, 612-613 [2006], quoting *Matter of Pokoik v Silsdorf,*40 NY2d 769 [1976]). In addition, pursuant to Brookhaven Town Code § 85-30 (A) (3), the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Brookhaven (hereinafter the Zoning Board) lacked the authority to extend the petitioner’s special permit. Moreover, estoppel is not available to preclude the respondents from denying the validity of the Zoning Board’s purported extension thereof *(see Matter of Parkview Assoc. v City of New York,*71 NY2d 274, 282 [1988], *cert denied*488 US 801 [1988]; *McGannon v Board of Trustees for Vil. of Pomona,*239 AD2d 392, 393 [1997]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Skelos, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2

    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



        In connection with the Quarterly Report of Catcher Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Jeff Gilford, 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)
                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

        (2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
                material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the
                Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of
                operations of the Company for the periods presented.

                                            /s/ Jeff Gilford
Date:       August 12, 2005                 ----------------------------------
                                                Jeff Gilford
                                                Chief Financial Officer of
                                                Catcher Holdings, Inc.

This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Catcher Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Catcher Holdings,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
**EXHIBIT 32.1****Certification of Chief Executive Officer**     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Syntax-Brillian Corporation (the“Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James Ching Hua Li, Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.              /s/ James Ching Hua Li   James Ching Hua Li   Chief Executive Officer   November 14, 2007 
26
Filed by Bowne Pure Compliance



 




Exhibit 10(a)




July 30, 2007




Mr. Larry Kraft

[Address]




Dear Larry,




The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors has approved the following modification to
your terms and conditions of employment with Digi International. This modification deletes all
aspects of the severance agreement communicated to you in your February 4, 2003 offer letter and
replaces it with the following:



Severance Agreement




If Digi International should involuntarily terminate your employment at any time in the future for
reasons other than Cause, you will be provided with the following severance package in exchange for
a full release of claims against the Company:




	 	1)	 	Twelve months of base salary in effect at the time of termination. This shall
be paid in a lump sum as soon as administratively feasible after the later of the date
of termination or the date the release of claims has become irrevocable.
	 
	 	2)	 	A pro-rata bonus based on number of months worked in the fiscal year prior to a
qualifying termination and the Company’s actual performance against annual objections.
This pro-rata bonus shall be paid no later than 2.5 months after the close of the
fiscal year in which the qualifying termination occurs.





For purposes of this agreement, “Cause” shall mean only the following: (i) indictment or
conviction of, or a plea of nolo contendere to, (A) any felony (other than any felony arising out
of negligence), or any misdemeanor involving moral turpitude with respect to the Company, or (B)
any crime or offense involving dishonesty with respect to the Company; (ii) theft or embezzlement
of Company property or commission of similar acts involving dishonesty or moral turpitude; (iii)
material negligence in the performance of your job duties after notice; (iv) failure to devote
substantially all of his working time and efforts during normal business hours to the Company’s
business; or (v) knowing engagement in conduct which is materially injurious to the Company.


 


 









 





Larry Kraft, July 30, 2007, pg 2




To acknowledge your receipt and acceptance of this modification, please sign and return a copy of
this letter to me.



Sincerely,




/s/ Tracy Roberts




Tracy Roberts

VP, Human Resources & IT




I accept the modification to my terms and conditions of employment as outlined in this letter:



	 	 	 
	/s/Lawrence A. Kraft

	 	8/01/07
	 

	 	 
	Lawrence Kraft

	 	Date
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gregory Lee, Appellant.

[820 NYS2d 672]

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Main, Jr., J), rendered September 6, 2005, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted burglary in the third degree.

In satisfaction of a superior court information and other pending charges, defendant pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of attempted burglary in the third degree and waived his right to appeal with the exception of the sentence imposed. As part of the plea agreement, the People recommended a prison sentence of 11⁄2 to 3 years. County Court imposed upon defendant, as a second felony offender, the maximum prison sentence of 2 to 4 years. On appeal, counsel for defendant seeks to be relieved of her assignment on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues that can be raised on appeal. Upon our review of the record, assigned counsel’s brief and defendant’s pro se submission, *1055we find, at least one issue of arguable merit. Where, as here, defendant did not waive the right to challenge the sentence, he is entitled to argue on appeal that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006], *revg People v Billingslea,*16 AD3d 516 [2005]; *People v Smith,*32 AD3d 553 [2006]). Inasmuch as this issue cannot be deemed “wholly frivolous” *(People v Stokes,*95 NY2d 633, 636 [2001]), and without expressing any opinion as to the ultimate merit of such issue, we grant counsel’s application to be relieved of her assignment and new counsel will be assigned to address this issue and any other nonfrivolous issue the record may disclose *(see id.; People v Smith, supra; People v Cruwys,*113 AD2d 979 [1985], *lv denied*67 NY2d 650 [1986]).

Spain, J.P., Carpinello, Mugglin, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is withheld, application to be relieved of assignment granted and new counsel to be assigned.
### §11262. Dissemination

The Director of the National Center for Health Services Research and Health Care Technology Assessment shall disseminate the results of research conducted under this part to appropriate professional entities and to the public.

(Pub. L. 99–660, title IX, §935, formerly §948, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3812; renumbered §935, Pub. L. 100–607, title I, §142(c)(2)(B), Nov. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 3057.)
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  (1)
    
    the Registrants Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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 Registrant.
 Dated: August 12, 2005
    
    /s/ Michael V. ShustekMichael V. Shustek*Chief Executive Officer
of Vestin Mortgage, Inc.,Manager of the RegistrantDated: August 12, 2005
    
    /s/ John AlderferJohn Alderfer*Chief Financial Officer
of Vestin Mortgage, Inc.,Manager of the Registrant
#### In the Matter of the Application of Abraham Pulis and Another for an Order Authorizing the Sale of Certain Real Property in the City and County of New York, Known as No. 428 West Thirty-third Street, Devised to Them for Life, etc. Martha Powles Merrion and Another, Appellants; Erva E. Davis and Others, Respondents.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present—Clarke, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Smith, JJ.
§ 500.9 Units of weight or mass, how expressed. ( a ) The term *net weight* or *net mass* may be used in stating the net quantity of contents in terms of weight or mass. However, where the term “net weight” or “net mass” is not used, the quantity of contents shall always disclose the net quantity of contents. For example: “453 g (1 lb)” or “Net Wt 1 lb (453 g)” or “Net Mass 453 g (1 lb)”.
( b ) With the exception of random packages, the statement of net quantity of contents in terms of avoirdupois weight shall be expressed as follows: ( 1 ) If less than 1 pound, in terms of ounces. (Examples: “Net Weight 12 oz. (340 g)” or “Net Mass 340 g (12 oz)”.)
( 2 ) If at least 1 pound but less than 4 pounds, in whole pounds, with any remainder in ounces or common or decimal fractions of the pound, except that it shall be optional to include an immediately adjacent additional expression of net quantity in terms of ounces. (Examples: “Net Wt. 1 lb. 8 oz. (680 g)” or “Net Wt. 1.5 lb./24 oz. (680 g)” or “24 oz. (11 ⁄ 2 lb.) 680 g”.)
( 3 ) If 4 pounds or more, in terms of whole pounds, with any remainder in terms of ounces or common or decimal fractions of the pound, except that it shall be optional to include an immediately adjacent additional expression of net quantity in terms of ounces. (Examples: “Net Weight 5 pounds 4 ounces (2.38 kg)” or “Net Mass 2.38 kg (5 lbs 4 oz)” or “Net Wt. 51 ⁄ 4 lbs. (2.38 kg)” or “Net Mass 2.38 kg (51 ⁄ 4 lbs.)” or “Net Wt. 5.25 lbs. (2.38 kg) or “Net Mass 2.38 kg (5.25 lbs)”.)
( c ) If the net quantity of contents declaration appears on a random package it may, when the net weight exceeds 1 pound, be expressed in terms of pounds and decimal fractions of the pound carried out to not more than three decimal places. When the net weight does not exceed 1 pound, the declaration on the random package may be in terms of decimal fractions of the pound in lieu of ounces. (Examples: “Net Wt. 0.75 lb.” and “Net Weight 1.05 pounds.”) Such decimal declaration shall be exempt from the type size and placement requirements of section 4(a) of the Act if the accurate statement of net weight is presented prominently and conspicuously on the principal display panel of the package. The net quantity of contents declaration on a random package is not required to, but may include a statement in terms of the SI metric system carried out to not more than 3 decimal places.
( d ) It is sufficient to distinguish avoirdupois ounce from fluid ounce through association of terms. (Examples: “Net Wt. 6 oz.” vs. “6 fl. oz.” or “Net Contents 6 fl. oz.”)
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3444 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify eligibility for the 

child tax credit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2011 

Mr. KINGSTON (for himself and Mr. WESTMORELAND) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify 

eligibility for the child tax credit. 

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 ‘‘Child Tax Credit In5 tegrity Preservation Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR CHILD TAX CREDIT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (e) of section 24 of the 

8 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

9 ‘‘under this section to a taxpayer’’ and all that follows and 

10 inserting ‘‘under this section to any taxpayer unless— 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3444 IH

1 ‘‘(1) such taxpayer includes the taxpayer’s valid 

2 identification number (as defined in section 

3 6428(h)(2)) on the return of tax for the taxable 

4 year, and 

5 ‘‘(2) with respect to any qualifying child, the 

6 taxpayer includes the name and taxpayer identifica7 tion number of such qualifying child on such return 

8 of tax.’’. 

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

10 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

11 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### §1320c–7. Application of this part to certain State programs receiving Federal financial assistance

#### (a) State plan provision that functions of quality improvement organizations may be performed by contract with such organization

A State plan approved under subchapter XIX of this chapter may provide that the functions specified in section 1320c–3 of this title may be performed in an area by contract with a quality improvement organization that has entered into a contract with the Secretary in accordance with the provisions of section 1395y(g) of this title.

#### (b) Federal share of expenditures

In the event a State enters into a contract in accordance with subsection (a), the Federal share of the expenditures made to the contracting organization for its costs in the performance of its functions under the State plan shall be 75 percent (as provided in section 1396b(a)(3)(C) of this title).

(Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XI, §1158, as added Pub. L. 97–248, title I, §143, Sept. 3, 1982, 96 Stat. 390; amended Pub. L. 112–40, title II, §261(a)(2)(C), Oct. 21, 2011, 125 Stat. 423.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 1320c–7, act Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XI, §1158, as added Oct. 30, 1972, Pub. L. 92–603, title II, §249F(b), 86 Stat. 1437; amended Oct. 25, 1977, Pub. L. 95–142, §§5(d)(1), 22(a), 91 Stat. 1185, 1208; Dec. 5, 1980, Pub. L. 96–499, title IX, §§902(a)(3), 931(h), 94 Stat. 2613, 2634; Aug. 13, 1981, Pub. L. 97–35, title XXI, §§2113(e), 2121(g), 95 Stat. 794, 796, related to review approval as a condition of payment of claims, prior to the general revision of this part by Pub. L. 97–248.

#### Amendments

2011—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 112–40 substituted "quality improvement" for "utilization and quality control peer review" in text.

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

#### Effective Date of 2011 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 112–40 applicable to contracts entered into or renewed on or after Jan. 1, 2012, see section 261(e) of Pub. L. 112–40, set out as a note under section 1320c of this title.
N/A

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4.0

4

3

3

3

2

2

2

6 1

1

4

0 10 50 MILES

10

20 30 40

0 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

Base modified from U.S. Dept. of Commerce,

Bureau of the Census digital data, 1990

Albers Equal-area Conic projection

Standard parallels 29°30′ and 45°30′, central meridian -107°30′

41°

41°30′

42°

42°30′

43°

43°30′

44°

44°30′

45°

107°30′ 107° 106°30′ 106° 105°30′ 105° 104°30′ 104°

CARBON

NATRONA

ALBANY

CAMPBELL

JOHNSON

CROOK

CONVERSE

LARAMIE

PLATTE

WESTON

GOSHEN

NIOBRARA

WELD

SHERIDAN

LARIMER

WASHAKIE

SIOUX

ROUTT JACKSON

BUTTE

BIG HORN

BIG HORN

MOFFAT

CUSTER

LAWRENCE

FREMONT

CARTER

FALL

RIVER

POWDER RIVER

PENNINGTON

KIMBALL BANNER

SWEETWATER

SCOTTS BLUFF

N

E

B

RA

S

KA

S

O

U

T

H

DA

KO

TA

WYOMING

COLORADO

MONTANA

EXPLANATION

Region number and name

Rocky Mountains

Central Basins and

Northern Plains

Eastern Basins and

Eastern Plains

Eastern Mountains

High Desert

Soils--hydrologic index

Schwarz, G.E., and Alexander, R.B., 1995

Region boundary

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

WATER-RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS REPORT 03-4107

Soils hydrologic index data PLATE 2

Miller, K.A., 2003, Peak-Flow Characteristics of Wyoming Streams

Prepared in cooperation with the

WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

SOILS HYDROLOGIC INDEX DATA

by

Kirk A. Miller

2003

1

2

3

4

6

N/A

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4.0
### §14214. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 14214 was editorially reclassified as section 12633 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### §14333. Limitations on sale of zinc-carbon batteries containing mercury

No person shall sell, offer for sale, or offer for promotional purposes any zinc-carbon battery manufactured on or after May 13, 1996, that contains mercury that was intentionally introduced as described in section 14332 of this title.

(Pub. L. 104–142, title II, §204, May 13, 1996, 110 Stat. 1336.)