alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1996b. Interethnic adoption

#### (1) Prohibited conduct

A person or government that is involved in adoption or foster care placements may not—

(A) deny to any individual the opportunity to become an adoptive or a foster parent, on the basis of the race, color, or national origin of the individual, or of the child, involved; or

(B) delay or deny the placement of a child for adoption or into foster care, on the basis of the race, color, or national origin of the adoptive or foster parent, or the child, involved.

#### (2) Enforcement

Noncompliance with paragraph (1) is deemed a violation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.].

#### (3) No effect on the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978

This subsection shall not be construed to affect the application of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 [25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.].

(Pub. L. 104–188, title I, §1808(c), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1904.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, referred to in par. (2), is Pub. L. 88–352, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 241. Title VI of the Act is classified generally to subchapter V (§2000d et seq.) of this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2000a of this title and Tables.

The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, referred to in par. (3), is Pub. L. 95–608, Nov. 8, 1978, 92 Stat. 3069, which is classified principally to chapter 21 (§1901 et seq.) of Title 25, Indians. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1901 of Title 25 and Tables.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of the Estate of Mark J. Petrylak, Deceased, Respondent, v Evans Plumbing and Heating Company, Inc. et al., Appellants. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

[715 NYS2d 923]

Mercure, J. P.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed June 18, 1999, which ruled that the death of decedent arose out of and in the course of his employment and awarded workers’ compensation benefits.

Decedent and a co-worker were killed in a motor vehicle accident that occurred while they were returning home from a work site. Concluding that decedent, a plumber’s apprentice, was an outside employee, the Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that decedent was in the course of his employment at the time of the fatal accident and awarded workers’ compensation benefits to his widow. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier appeal, contending that decedent had a fixed work site at the time of the accident and, therefore, was not an outside employee.

Inasmuch as the facts of this case are indistinguishable from the facts of the companion case involving the claim of the co*622worker’s estate, the Board’s decision must be affirmed for the reasons stated in this Court’s decision in the appeal in the companion case *(Matter of DeRosa v Evans Plumbing & Heating Co.,*277 AD2d 619 [decided herewith]).

Crew III, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Docket No. FAA-2014-0750
#### Lula M. Gilbert, Respondent, v. American Oil and Lubricant Works, Inc., Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred.
5335.015-70  Special Use Allowances for Research Facilities Acquired by Educational Institutions       (c) See MP5301.601(a)(i).          (d)(3)(ii) See MP5301.601(a)(i).   **Parent topic:** Part 5335 - Research and Development Contracting
### §2704. Discontinued Job Corps centers; utilization for special youth programs

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity shall establish procedures and make arrangements which are designed to assure that facilities and equipment of Job Corps centers which are being discontinued will, where feasible, be made available for use by State or Federal agencies and other public or private agencies, institutions, and organizations with satisfactory arrangements for utilizing such facilities and equipment for conducting programs, especially those providing opportunities for low-income disadvantaged youth, including, without limitation—

(1) special remedial programs;

(2) summer youth programs;

(3) exemplary vocational preparation and training programs;

(4) cultural enrichment programs, including music, the arts, and the humanities;

(5) training programs designed to improve the qualifications of educational personnel, including instructors in vocational educational programs; and

(6) youth conservation work and other conservation programs.

(b) To achieve the objectives of this section, the Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity shall consult with, elicit the cooperation of, and utilize the services of the Administrator of the General Services Administration, and the Secretaries of Agriculture, of the Interior, and of Labor.

(Pub. L. 91–177, title I, §113, Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 832; Pub. L. 93–644, §9(a), Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2310.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Economic Opportunity Amendments of 1969, and not as part of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 which comprises this chapter.

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

#### Office of Economic Opportunity

Pub. L. 93–644, §9(a), Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2310 [42 U.S.C. 2941], amended the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.] to create the Community Services Administration, an independent agency in the executive branch, as the successor authority to the Office of Economic Opportunity, and provided that references to the Office of Economic Opportunity or to its Director were deemed to refer to the Community Services Administration or to its Director. The Community Services Administration was terminated when the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, except for titles VIII and X, was repealed, effective Oct. 1, 1981, by Pub. L. 97–35, title VI, §683(a), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 519, which was classified to section 9912(a) of this title, prior to the general amendment of chapter 106 (§9901 et seq.) of this title by Pub. L. 105–285. An Office of Community Services, headed by a Director, was established in the Department of Health and Human Services by Pub. L. 97–35, title VI, §676, Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 516, which was classified to section 9905 of this title, prior to the general amendment of chapter 106 of this title by Pub. L. 105–285. See section 9912 of this title.
#### § 22.15 Treatment of Cleared Swaps Customer Collateral on an individual basis.

Subject to § 22.3(d), each derivatives clearing organization and each Collecting Futures Commission Merchant receiving Cleared Swaps Customer Collateral from a futures commission merchant shall treat the value of collateral required with respect to the portfolio of rights and obligations arising out of the Cleared Swaps intermediated for each Cleared Swaps Customer, and collected from the futures commission merchant, as belonging to such Cleared Swaps Customer, and such amount shall not be used to margin, guarantee, or secure the Cleared Swaps or other obligations of the futures commission merchant, or of any other Cleared Swaps Customer, Futures Customer (as § 1.3 of this chapter defines that term), or Foreign Futures or Foreign Options Customer (as § 30.1 of this chapter defines that term). Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit, in any way, the right of a derivatives clearing organization or Collecting Futures Commission Merchant to liquidate any or all positions in a Cleared Swaps Customer Account in the event of a default of a clearing member or Depositing Futures Commission Merchant.

[77 FR 66335, Nov. 2, 2012]
NUMBER 13

- 14

- 00303

- CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

RICHARD BIANCHI , Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

.

On A ppeal from the 3 43rd District Court of Aransas County, Texas

.

NUMBER 13

- 14

- 00311

- CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN RE RICHARD BIANCHI

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Petition for Writ of Prohibition and2 Emergency Motion for Relief.

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Perkes and Longoria Order Per Curiam

On June 6 , 2014, in cause number 13

- 14

- 00303

- CV, the State of Texas, acting by

and through Michael Welborn, the Aransas County District Attorney, filed its “State’s

Response to Emergency Motions,” in which it requests that this Court lift , partially, lift, or

clarify the stay currently in effect in this case

. The State contends in part, that Richard

Bianchi “may be replaced with a successor at any time the Aransas County

Commissioner’s Court may choose to appoint one,” and thus the State requests that “to

the extent that the present stay may arguably prevent or di scourage such action, the State

would request that this Court partially lift, or clarify, its order to allow for that possibility.”

This Court has issued two orders of stay concerning the underlying proceedings :

an order issued on June 2, 2014 in appellat e cause number 13

- 14

- 00303

- CV, and an

order issued on June 4, 2014 in appellate cause number 13

- 14

- 00311

- CV.

The Court, having e xamined and fully considered the State’s request, is of the

opinion that it should be granted in part and carried with the cas e in part as stated herein.

We GRANT the State’s request insofar as we issue this order of clarification in both

appellate causes

. The stay orders previously issued in these causes do not affect or

impair the ability or duty of the Aransas County Commiss ioner’s Court with regard to any

actions that would be encompassed in its normal course of business, including

, but not

limited to, any potential appointments. All other relief sought by the State is CARRIED

WITH THE CASE.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIA M

D elivered and filed the 11 th day of June , 201 4

.
#### § 403.1 Application of part to registered brokers and dealers.

With respect to their activities in government securities, compliance by registered brokers or dealers with § 240.8c-1 of this title (SEC Rule 8c-1), as modified by § 403.2 (a), (b) and (c), with § 240.15c2-1 of this title (SEC Rule 15c2-1), with § 240.15c3-2 of this title (SEC Rule 15c3-2), as modified by § 403.3, and with § 240.15c3-3 of this title (SEC Rule 15c3-3), as modified by § 403.4 (a) through (d), (f)(2) through (3), (g) through (j), and (m), including provisions in those rules relating to OTC derivatives dealers, constitutes compliance with this part.

[71 FR 54411, Sept. 15, 2006]
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Sam Becker, Appellant, against John A. Lyons, as State Commissioner of Correction, Respondent.

Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn,

Vaughan, Kimball and Piper, JJ. [See *post,*p. 1019.]
**xhibit 32.1**

** **

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

In connectionwith the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of Little Sioux Corn Processors,L.L.C. (the “Company”) for the three month fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2004,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Stephen Roe, President and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   |  /s/  Stephen Roe                 |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | Stephen Roe                            |
|   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | Dated:                                 |  August  13, 2004 |   |

 

----
§ 1414.3 Definitions. When used in this part: ( a ) The term *person outside this agency,* to whom the prohibitions apply, shall include any individual outside the Board or the Authority, labor organization, agency, or other entity, or an agent thereof, and the General Counsel or his representative when prosecuting an unfair labor practice proceeding before the Board pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 4116.
( b ) The term *ex parte communication* means an oral or written communication not on the public record with respect to which reasonable prior notice to all parties is not given, subject however, to the provisions of §§ 1414.5 and 1414.6.
#### Michael Boros, Sr., guardian of the estate of Michael Boros, Jr., appellee, v. Olson Rug Company, appellant.

Gen. No. 27,248.

Action for personal injuries to a minor while employed by defendant on a dangerous and hazardous machine in violation of the Child Labor Act. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Theodore Brentano, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1921. *Certiorari*denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 30, 1922.

Charles A. Scott and Wiley W. Mills, for appellant. Finn & Miller, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Dever

delivered the opinion of the court.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-10137

Summary Calendar

 

CARLOS DEMOUR DALE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

F. BRIDGES, Officer #5052;

Dallas County Jail,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:96-CV-3088-AH

- - - - - - - - - -

July 21, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Carlos Demour Dale, Texas prisoner # 769023, appeals from

the magistrate judge’s order granting summary judgment in favor

of Officer Bridges and dismissing Dale’s claim under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. Dale contends that, in granting the motion, the

magistrate judge overlooked the existence of genuine issues of

fact which are material to his claims of excessive force and

denial of adequate medical care. 
No. 98-10137

-2-

A thorough review of the record reveals that Dale has failed

to establish a valid claim for either excessive force or denial

of adequate medical care. See Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37

F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc); Siglar v. Hightower,

112 F.3d 191, 193-94 (5th Cir. 1997).

AFFIRMED.
###### Editorial Note on Part 249

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 249 appear at 57 FR 36501, Aug. 13, 1992, and 57 FR 47409, Oct. 16, 1992.

#### §§ 249.208b-249.208c [Reserved]

###### Editorial Note on Subpart C of Part 249

#### Editorial Note:

Amended Form 8-A replaces former Form 8-C; see § 249.208a of this chapter.
§ 38.708 Decisions. Promptly following a hearing conducted in accordance with § 38.707 of this part, the disciplinary panel must render a written decision based upon the weight of the evidence contained in the record of the proceeding and must provide a copy to the respondent. The decision must include: ( a ) The notice of charges or a summary of the charges;
( b ) The answer, if any, or a summary of the answer;
( c ) A summary of the evidence produced at the hearing or, where appropriate, incorporation by reference of the investigation report;
( d ) A statement of findings and conclusions with respect to each charge, and a complete explanation of the evidentiary and other basis for such findings and conclusions with respect to each charge;
( e ) An indication of each specific rule that the respondent was found to have violated; and
( f ) A declaration of all sanctions imposed against the respondent, including the basis for such sanctions and the effective date of such sanctions.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 238 (Monday, December 13, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 72251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27230]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending November 26, 2004

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: OST-1999-5846.
    Date Filed: November 23, 2004.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: December 14, 2004.
    Description: Application of United Air Lines, Inc., requesting 
renewal and amendment of its experimental certificate of public 
convenience and necessity for route 566 (U.S.-Mexico).

    Docket Number: OST-1999-6663.
    Date Filed: November 23, 2004.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: December 14, 2004.
    Description: Application of United Parcel Service Co. requesting 
renewal of its certificate authorizing UPS to engage in scheduled 
foreign air transportation of property and mail between Austin, 
Houston, Louisville and San Antonio and Monterrey, Guadalajara and 
Mexico City, Mexico.

    Docket Number: OST-1999-6172.
    Date Filed: November 24, 2004.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: December 15, 2004.
    Description: Application of American Airlines, Inc., requesting a 
renewal and amendment of its certificate for Route 560 so as to include 
the following additional U.S.-Mexico route segments for which American 
currently holds separate certificate authority on Route 794.

    Docket Number: OST-2001-9027.
    Date Filed: November 24, 2004.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: December 15, 2004.
    Description: Application of American Airlines, Inc., requesting 
renewal of its certificate for Route 794 authorizing scheduled foreign 
air transportation of persons, property, and mail between New York 
(JFK)-Cancun and St. Louis-Cancun.

Maria Gulczewski,
Supervisory Dockets Officer, Alternate Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 04-27230 Filed 12-10-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 23

- 00221

- CR

IN RE John Bernard WILLIAMS

, III , Relator

Original Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Beth Watkins , Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 19, 2023

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On March 8, 2023 , relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. After considering the

petition and the attached exhibits , t his court concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a)

PER CURIAM

Do not publish

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2019CR6240 , styled The State of Texas v. John Bernard Williams, III

, pending in the 186th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Jefferson Moore presiding.
#### Solomon Segal, Defendant in Error, v. Joseph Goldberg, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 18,497.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Habby P. Dolan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1914.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed January 26, 1915.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Solomon Segal against Joseph Goldberg for the return of $350 alleged to have been deposited with defendant under the terms of a lease by which said sum was to be held by defendant, as lessor, until the termination of said lease as security for the purpose of indemnifying the lessor for the removal of the front of the building, and was to be returned with three per cent, interest per annum unless the lessee failed to restore the said front “at the expiration of the lease,” in which event it was to be retained as fixed and liquidated damages. The lease also provided for a penalty of $10 each day the tenant held over. The case was tried before .the court without a jury and there was a finding and judgment in favor of plaintiff for $235; To reverse the judgment, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.

The testimony tended to show that at the expiration of the lease, the lessee offered to make the restoration but was deterred from so doing by the lessor, that the cost of restoration would have been $150, and that the lessee surrendered the keys five days after the lease expired. The court evidently arrived at its finding by deducting from the amount of the deposit and three per cent, interest thereon to the date of the expiration of the lease the estimated cost of restoring the building and $50 for holding over, thus leaving $200, on which the statutory interest to the date of judgment was $35.

*189Abstract of the Decision.

' Damages, § *85*
      ***
      *—when deposit under terms of lease treated as penalty.*A deposit made by the lessee with the lessor which by the terms of the lease was to be retained by the lessor in case the lessee failed to restore the front of the building at the expiration of the lease, *held*properly treated by the court as a penalty rather than liquidated damages in a suit to recover it, where the only competent evidence on the estimated cost of restoring the building was offered by plaintiff, from the nature of which it appeared the cost could be computed with approximate certainty.

Harry Brown, for plaintiff in error; L. M. Ackley, of counsel.

Douglas C. Gregg, for defendant in error.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.