alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1962b–5. Compensation of members and chairmen

#### (a) Additional compensation prohibited to members appointed from Federal departments, agencies, and international commissions

Any member of a river basin commission appointed pursuant to section 1962b–1(b) and (e) of this title shall receive no additional compensation by virtue of his membership on the commission, but shall continue to receive, from appropriations made for the agency from which he is appointed, the salary of his regular position when engaged in the performance of the duties vested in the commission.

#### (b) Compensation of members from States and interstate agencies

Members of a commission, appointed pursuant to section 1962b–1(c) and (d) of this title, shall each receive such compensation as may be provided by the States or the interstate agency respectively, which they represent.

#### (c) Compensation of chairman

The per annum compensation of the chairman of each river basin commission shall be determined by the President, but when employed on a full-time annual basis shall not exceed the maximum scheduled rate for grade GS–18 or when engaged in the performance of the commission's duties on an intermittent basis such compensation shall be not more than $100 per day and shall not exceed $12,000 in any year.

(Pub. L. 89–80, title II, §206, July 22, 1965, 79 Stat. 250.)

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

#### References in Other Laws to GS–16, 17, or 18 Pay Rates

References in laws to the rates of pay for GS–16, 17, or 18, or to maximum rates of pay under the General Schedule, to be considered references to rates payable under specified sections of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, see section 529 [title I, §101(c)(1)] of Pub. L. 101–509, set out in a note under section 5376 of Title 5.
#### Alina Tovar, Appellant, v Augusto Tovar, Respondent.

[820 NYS2d 903]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Tolbert, J.), entered February 16, 2006, which denied her motion to vacate her default in appearing at a preliminary conference on June 9, 2005 and an inquest held on that date.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion which was to vacate the plaintiffs default in appearing at the inquest as to outstanding economic issues and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a new inquest upon notice to the plaintiff and her counsel with respect to outstanding economic issues.

After the plaintiff and her counsel failed to appear at two preliminary conferences, the plaintiffs counsel was notified that the matter was adjourned until June 9, 2005, and that “[n]o adjournments will be granted for any reason.” The notice further stated that “[t]his matter will be dismissed if Plaintiff and counsel do not appear on the above scheduled date” of June 9, 2005. The plaintiff and her counsel failed to appear on June 9, 2005 without contacting the court or opposing counsel.

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint “upon [the plaintiffs] failure to appear on three separate occasions, including today.” The Supreme Court immediately proceeded to conduct an inquest on the defendant’s counterclaim for a divorce and economic issues in the matrimonial action which had not been resolved by stipulation or prior order of the Family Court.

This Court has held that “when a judgment of divorce is being granted on the default of one of the parties, an inquest should be taken on the economic issues” *(Otto v Otto,*150 AD2d 57, 68 [1989]). Where, as here, the defaulting party has appeared in the action, the inquest “should be scheduled with notice given to the defaulting party in such a manner as may be *1016directed by the court” *(Otto v Otto, supra*at 68-69; *see Rosen v Rosen,*308 AD2d 482, 483 [2003]).

In the instant case, there was no reasonable excuse for the plaintiffs default. However, the plaintiff was entitled to notice of the inquest with respect to the outstanding economic issues.

Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a new inquest on the outstanding economic issues, upon notice to the plaintiff and her counsel. Adams, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.
#### § 930.75 State agency assistance to persons.

As a preliminary matter, any person intending to submit to the Secretary of the Interior an OCS plan which describes in detail federal license or permit activities affecting any coastal use or resource should obtain the views and assistance of the State agency regarding the means for ensuring that such activities will be conducted in a manner consistent with the management program. As part of its assistance efforts, the State agency shall make available for inspection copies of the management program document. Upon request by such persons, the State agency shall identify any enforceable policies applicable to the proposed activities, based upon the information submitted to the State agency.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Scott TOWNSEND, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-10258

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 17, 2007.

Denise B. Williams, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jerry V. Beard, Sherylynn Ann KimeGoodwin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Michael Townsend has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396,18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Townsend has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no non-frivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 2139** 

MICHAEL A. MCNEIL , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v. STATE OF MARYLAND; HOWARD COUNTY, Maryland; HOWARD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT; DIANE O. LEASURE, Chief Administrative Judge, in her Official and Individual Capacity; LOUIS A. BECKER, III, Associate Judge, in his Official Capacity; MARY M. KRAMER, Master in Chancery, in her Official Capacity; LISA S. MOHINK, Family Law Coordinator, in her Official and Indivi dual Capacity; PATRICIA BRIGHT, Court Social Worker, in her Official and Individual Capacity; CHRISTINIA BIEGANSKI, Supervised Visitation Center Manager, in her Official and Individual Capacity; SUSAN R. GNATT, Supervisory Court Reporter, in her Official a nd Individual Capacity; STEPHEN A. DRAZIN; PETER V. MARKUSKI, JR.; SARAH P. MCNEIL; VINCENT LOVE; M. SLUTSKY & ASSOCIATES, INC

. , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Deborah K. Chasanow , Chief District Judge. ( 8:11

- cv
- 02495

- DKC )

Submitted : January 17, 2013 Decided: January 22, 2013

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Michael A. McNeil, Appellant Pro Se. Hugh Scott Curtis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Louis Paul Ruzzi, HOWARD COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Ellicott City , Maryland; Stephen A. Drazin, Columbia, Maryland; Jeffrey Wayne Bernstein, GOOZMAN, B ERNSTEIN & MARKUSKI, Laurel, Maryland; Sarah P. McNeil, Ellicott City, Maryland; Timothy J. Mummert, Ferndale, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Michael A. McNeil appeals the district c ourt ’ s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint and
related claims . We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. McNeil v. Maryland , No. 8:11

- cv
- 02495

- DKC
(D. Md. Aug. 22, 2012) . We deny McNeil’s motion to strike the
Appellees’ briefs and we dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before th is court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### §1973b. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 1973b was editorially reclassified as section 10303 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.
### §1962d–9. Information from Federal agencies for Delmarva Peninsula study

The Secretary is authorized to secure directly from any executive department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality of the Federal Government, information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics for the purpose of sections 1962d–7 to 1962d–11 of this title, and each department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality is authorized and directed to furnish such information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics, to the Secretary upon his or his designee's request.

(Pub. L. 89–618, §3, Oct. 4, 1966, 80 Stat. 870.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the Water Resources Planning Act which comprises this chapter.
Editorial Note on Part 200
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 200 appear at 76 FR 60371, Sept. 29, 2011.

§ 200.311 Inspector General exemptions. ( a ) Pursuant to, and limited by 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), the system of records maintained by the Office of Inspector General of the Commission that contains investigative files is exempt from the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a, except sections (b), (c)(1) and (2), (e)(4)(A) through (F), (e)(6), (e)(7), (e)(9), (e)(10), and (e)(11), and (i), and §§ 200.303 through 200.309, insofar as the system contains information pertaining to criminal law enforcement investigations.
( b ) Pursuant to, and limited by 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), the system of records maintained by the Office of Inspector General of the Commission that contains investigative files is exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), and (f) and §§ 200.303 through 200.309, insofar as it contains investigatory materials compiled for law enforcement purposes.
3445.302 Contracts with foreign governments or international organizations.       Requests by, or for the benefit of, foreign governments or international organizations to use ED production and research property must be approved by the HCA. The HCA must determine the amount of cost to be recovered or rental charged, if any, based on the facts and circumstances of each case.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 3445.3—Authorizing the Use and Rental of Government Property
### §1490i. Repealed. Pub. L. 98–181, title I [title V, §506(b)], Nov. 30, 1983, 97 Stat. 1242

Section, act July 15, 1949, ch. 338, title V, §529, as added Nov. 9, 1978, Pub. L. 95–619, title II, §252(b), 92 Stat. 3236, required the Secretary of Agriculture to promote the use of energy saving techniques through the establishment of minimum property standards for newly constructed residential housing.
### §19031. Office of Research Security and Policy

The Director shall maintain a Research Security and Policy office within the Office of the Director with not fewer than four full-time equivalent positions, in addition to the Chief of Research Security established pursuant to section 19032 of this title. The functions of the Research Security and Policy office shall be to coordinate all research security policy issues across the Foundation, including by—

(1) consulting and coordinating with the Foundation Office of Inspector General, with other Federal research agencies, and intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and the National Science and Technology Council, as appropriate, in accordance with the authority provided under section 1746 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public Law 116–92; 42 U.S.C. 6601 note), to identify and address potential security risks that threaten research integrity and other risks to the research enterprise and to develop research security policy and best practices, taking into account the policy guidelines to be issued by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy under section 19231 of this title;

(2) serving as a resource at the Foundation for all issues related to the security and integrity of the conduct of Foundation-supported research;

(3) conducting outreach and education activities for recipients on research policies and potential security risks and on policies and activities to protect intellectual property and information about critical technologies relevant to national security, consistent with the controls relevant to the grant or award;

(4) educating Foundation program managers and other directorate staff on evaluating Foundation awards and recipients for potential security risks;

(5) communicating reporting and disclosure requirements to recipients and applicants for funding;

(6) performing risk assessments, in consultation, as appropriate, with other Federal agencies, of Foundation proposals and awards using analytical tools to assess nondisclosures of required information;

(7) establishing policies and procedures for identifying, communicating, and addressing security risks that threaten the integrity of Foundation-supported research and development, working in consultation, as appropriate, with other Federal agencies, to ensure compliance with National Security Presidential Memorandum–33 (relating to strengthening protections of United States Government-supported research and development against foreign government interference and exploitation) or a successor policy document; and

(8) in accordance with relevant policies of the agency, conducting or facilitating due diligence with regard to applications for research and development awards from the Foundation prior to making such awards.

(Pub. L. 117–167, div. B, title III, §10331, Aug. 9, 2022, 136 Stat. 1551.)
### §1973k. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 1973k was editorially reclassified as section 10309 of Title 52, Voting and Elections.
§ 171.5 Extension of time. ( a ) *In general.* Except as otherwise provided by these rules, for good cause shown, on its own motion or the motion of a party, the Commission may at any time extend or shorten the time prescribed by the rules for filing any document. In any instance in which a specific time period is not prescribed in this part for an action to be taken concerning any matter, the Commission may establish a time for that action.
( b ) *Filing of motion.* Absent extraordinary circumstances, when the time period that has been prescribed for an action to be taken concerning any matter exceeds seven days, requests for extension of that time period shall be filed at least five days prior to the expiration of the time period provided and shall include an explanation of the facts and circumstances that justify the extension.
Editorial Note on Part 240
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 240 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

§ 240.15Ba1-7 Registration of successor to municipal advisor. ( a ) In the event that a municipal advisor succeeds to and continues the business of a municipal advisor registered pursuant to section 15B(a) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78 o -4(a)), the registration of the predecessor shall be deemed to remain effective as the registration of the successor if the successor, within 30 days after the succession, files an application for registration on Form MA (17 CFR 249.1300), and the predecessor files a notice of withdrawal from registration on Form MA-W (17 CFR 249.1320); *provided, however,* that the registration of the predecessor municipal advisor will cease to be effective as the registration of the successor municipal advisor 45 days after the application for registration on Form MA is filed by the successor.
( b ) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, if a municipal advisor succeeds to and continues the business of a registered predecessor municipal advisor, and the succession is based solely on a change in the predecessor's date or state of incorporation, form of organization, or composition of a partnership, the successor may, within 30 days after the succession, amend the registration of the predecessor municipal advisor on Form MA (17 CFR 249.1300) to reflect these changes. This amendment shall be deemed an application for registration filed by the predecessor and adopted by the successor.
[78 FR 67633, Nov. 12, 2013]
### §1962d–5e. Wetland areas

#### (a) Authorization of Secretary of the Army to plan and establish wetland areas; criteria for establishment

The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized to plan and establish wetland areas as part of an authorized water resources development project under his jurisdiction. Establishment of any wetland area in connection with the dredging required for such a water resources development project may be undertaken in any case where the Chief of Engineers in his judgment finds that—

(1) environmental, economic, and social benefits of the wetland area justifies the increased cost thereof above the cost required for alternative methods of disposing of dredged material for such project; and

(2) the increased cost of such wetland area will not exceed $400,000; and

(3) there is reasonable evidence that the wetland area to be established will not be substantially altered or destroyed by natural or man-made causes.

#### (b) Reports to Congress

Whenever the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, submits to Congress a report on a water resources development project after October 22, 1976, such report shall include, where appropriate, consideration of the establishment of wetland areas.

#### (c) Cost

In the computation of benefits and cost of any water resources development project the benefits of establishing of any wetland area shall be deemed to be at least equal to the cost of establishing such area. All costs of establishing a wetland area shall be borne by the United States.

(Pub. L. 94–587, §150, Oct. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 2931.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976, and not as part of the Water Resources Planning Act which comprises this chapter.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**Certification**


**Pursuant
      to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the**


**United
      States Code as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906**


**of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





In
      connection with the filing of the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of Biomass
      Processing Technology, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31,
      2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the “Report”), the undersigned, Robert F. Kendall, CPA, Chief Financial Officer
      of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. §1350, that:





(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
                as
                applicable, 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.





Dated:  May
      9,
      2006


/s/
      Robert F. Kendall


Name:  
      Robert F. Kendall, CPA


Title: Chief
      Financial Officer


(principal financial officer)
### §1777. Use in school breakfast program of food designated as being in abundance or food donated by the Secretary of Agriculture

Each school participating under section 1773 of this title shall, insofar as practicable, utilize in its program foods designated from time to time by the Secretary as being in abundance, either nationally or in the school area, or foods donated by the Secretary. Foods available under section 1431 of title 7 or purchased under section 612c or 1446a–1 of title 7, may be donated by the Secretary to schools, in accordance with the needs as determined by local school authorities, for utilization in their feeding programs under this chapter.

(Pub. L. 89–642, §8, Oct. 11, 1966, 80 Stat. 888.)
### §1592k. Determination of fair rentals and classes of occupants by Secretary

The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall fix fair rentals based on the value thereof as determined by the Secretary which shall be charged for housing accommodations operated under this subchapter and may prescribe the class or classes of persons who may occupy such accommodations, preferences, or priorities in the rental thereof, and the terms, conditions, and period of such occupancy.

(Sept. 1, 1951, ch. 378, title III, §312, 65 Stat. 308; Pub. L. 89–174, §5(a), Sept. 9, 1965, 79 Stat. 669.)

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

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions to Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, see note set out under section 1581 of this title.
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

June 25, 2010

Mr. Douglas W. Alexander

Alexander Dubose  & Townsend LLP

515 Congress Avenue, Suite 2350

Austin, TX 78701-3562

Mr. John Thomas Wilson IV

Kelly Hart & Hallman, P.C.

201 Main Street, Suite 2500

Fort Worth, TX 76102

RE:Case Number:  08-0074

Court of Appeals Number:  03-05-00034-CV

Trial Court Number:  8027

Style:THOMAS O. BENNETT, JR., AND JAMES B. BONHAM CORPORATION

v.

RANDY REYNOLDS

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas issued opinions in the above-referenced cause.  You may obtain a copy of the opinion at: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/recent.asp.  If you would like the opinion by email, please contact Claudia Jenks at claudia.jenks@courts.state.tx.us or call (512)463-1312 ext. 41367.  (Justice Lehrmann not sitting)

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosure

**Case No. 08-0074Page 1**
#### Charles V. Barker, Appellant, v. Frances E. Barker and Others, Defendants. Maud Archer and Others, Appellants; Pauline May and Others, Respondents.

Upon reargument the disposition of the appeal is in accordance with the opinion already written. (See 172 App. Div. 244.) Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Mills, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.