alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 204.41 Arbitration.

Any controversy or claim between A.I.D. and the Lender or any Assignee arising out of this Guaranty shall be settled by arbitration to be held in Washington, DC in accordance with the then prevailing rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrators may be entered in any court of competent jurisdiction.
SCWC

- 17

- 0000 696

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ‘ I

________________________________________________________________ MJ , Petitioner /Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs.

C R , Respondent /Defendant

- Appellant ,

and

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I,

Respondent/Defendant

- Appellee

.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP

- 17

- 0000 696 ; FC

- P NO. 16

- 1

- 6470 )

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Petitioner / Plaintiff

- Appellee MJ ’ s application for

writ of certiorari filed on October 1 8 , 2021, is hereby

rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ‘ i, December 6, 2021

.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-17-0000696 06-DEC-2021 12:33 PM Dkt. 13 ODAC
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4311 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4311

    To correct the boundaries of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 
          Resources System Unit L06, Topsail, North Carolina.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2012

  Mr. Jones introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To correct the boundaries of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 
          Resources System Unit L06, Topsail, North Carolina.

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

SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES 
              SYSTEM MAP.

    (a) In General.--The map included in the set of maps entitled 
``Coastal Barrier Resources System'' referred to in section 4(a) of the 
Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)) and relating to Unit 
L06 in North Carolina is hereby replaced by another map relating to the 
same unit entitled ``John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System 
Corrected Unit L06'' and dated ______.
    (b) Availability.--The Secretary of the Interior shall keep the 
replacement map referred to in subsection (a) on file and available for 
inspection in accordance with the section 4(b) of the Coastal Barrier 
Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(b)).
                                 <all>
```
### §300ff–137. Limitation with respect to duties of medical facilities

The duties established in this part for a medical facility—

(1) shall apply only to medical information possessed by the facility during the period in which the facility is treating the victim for conditions arising from the emergency, or during the 60-day period beginning on the date on which the victim is transported by emergency response employees to the facility, whichever period expires first; and

(2) shall not apply to any extent after the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the expiration of the applicable period referred to in paragraph (1), except that such duties shall apply with respect to any request under section 300ff–133(c) of this title received by a medical facility before the expiration of such 30-day period.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXVI, §2695F, as added Pub. L. 111–87, §13, Oct. 30, 2009, 123 Stat. 2901.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective as if enacted on Sept. 30, 2009, see section 2(a)(3)(B) of Pub. L. 111–87, set out as an Effective Date of 2009 Amendment; Revival of Section note under section 300ff–11 of this title.
Hk

\

Antelope | Gveen TI
Hills
co
seaian S 0 20 40 80 120 160 200
jasin SSS
Wild Horses CIAA 0 10 20 ee 80 100
— Herd Manegemen Areas \ Miles
Map 4-2
Wild Horses

Cumulative Impact Analysis Area

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM
#### In the Matter of Credit Department, Inc., et al., Appellants, v. Julius J. Blumenfeld, Respondent.

Motion for a stay denied, with $10 costs. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
§ 128.9 Proceedings before and report of Administrative Law Judge. ( a ) The Administrative Law Judge may conform any part of the proceedings before him or her to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The record may be made available in any other administrative or other proceeding involving the same respondent.
( b ) The Administrative Law Judge, after considering the record, will prepare a written report. The report will include findings of fact, findings of law, a finding whether a law or regulation has been violated, and the Administrative Law Judge's recommendations. It shall be transmitted to the Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs, Department of State.
[61 FR 48833, Sept. 17, 1996]
#### Mildred Nadell, Appellant, v. Erie Railroad Company, Respondent.

— Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to the plaintiff to plead over within twenty days upon payment of the costs of the motion and of this appeal. All concur.
§ 213.10 Aggressive collection actions; documentation. ( a ) USAID takes actions and effective follow-up on a timely basis to collect all claims of the United States for money and property arising out of USAID's activities. USAID cooperates with other Federal agencies in their debt collection activities.
( b ) USAID documents all administrative collection actions in the claim file, along with the basis for any compromise, termination, or suspension of collection actions. USAID retains this documentation, which may include the Claims-Collection Litigation Report (CCLR) provided in § 213.24, in the appropriate debt file.
[67 FR 47258, July 18, 2002. Redesignated and amended at 86 FR 31141, June 11, 2021]
EX-31.1 Certification
Pursuant to Section 302

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER

I, James E. Jenkins, certify
that:

1.    
          I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for TS&B Holdings, Inc.

2.    
          Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
          statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
          the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
          were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
          report.

3.    
          Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
          included in this Quarterly Report, fairly present in all material respects the
          financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
          of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.

4.    
          The registrants officers and I am responsible for establishing and
          maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
          13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and the company has:

a)       
          designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
          information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
          is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
          period in which this Quarterly Report is being prepared;

b)       
          evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
          procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
          Quarterly Report (the Evaluation Date); and

c)       
          presented in this Quarterly Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
          the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
          Evaluation Date;

5.    
          The registrant officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
          evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of
          registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
          function):

a)       
          all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
          which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
          summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
          registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)       
          any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
          who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and

Date: February 13, 2004

/s/ James E. JenkinsJames E. Jenkins, President
and Chief Executive Officer
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

US v. Lee, Case No. 08-2595-JCS

Case No. C 08-2595 JCS

Stip. To Reschedule Case Mgmt

Conf. and [proposed] Order 1

JOSEPH RUSSONIELLO (CSBN 44332)

United States Attorney

THOMAS MOORE (ASBN 4305-O78T)

Assistant United States Attorney

Chief, Tax Division

CYNTHIA STIER (DCBN 423256)

Assistant United States Attorney

9 Floor Federal Building th

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7000

Attorneys for the United States of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) No. C 08-2595 JCS

Plaintiff, )

) STIPULATION TO 

v. ) RESCHEDULE CASE

) MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

) 

RICHARD D. LEE, et al., ) 

) 

) Date: March 5, 2010

Defendants. ) Time: 1:30 p.m.

 ) Place: 15 Floor, Courtroom A th

Plaintiff, United States of America and Defendants, Richard Lee (hereinafter, “Lee”), and

the State of California Franchise Tax Board, hereby stipulate and agree, subject to the Court’s

approval, that the case management conference, currently scheduled for February 26, 2010, be

rescheduled to March 5, 2010, at 1:30 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted,

JOSEPH RUSSONIELLO

United States Attorney

Dated: February 22, 2010 : /s/ Cynthia Stier 

CYNTHIA STIER 

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Attorneys for the United States of America 

Case 3:08-cv-02595-JCS Document 49 Filed 02/23/10 Page 1 of 2 Case3:08-cv-02595-JCS Document48 Filed02/22/10 Page1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

US v. Lee, Case No. 08-2595-JCS

Case No. C 08-2595 JCS

Stip. To Reschedule Case Mgmt

Conf. and [proposed] Order 2

Dated: February 22, 2010 : /s/ David Porter 

DAVID PORTER 

Wood & Porter, P.C. 

333 Sacramento Street

San Francisco, CA 94111

Attorney for Richard Lee

Dated: February 22, 2010 : /s/ 

KAREN YIU

California State Attorney General’s Office

Attorney for State of CA Franchise Tax Board 

ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the case management conference, currently

scheduled for February 26, 2010, be rescheduled to March 5, 2010, at 1:30 p.m. 

In addition, the Court orders: 

SO ORDERED this _____ day of ___________, 2010. 

 

 THE HONORABLE JOSEPH C. SPERO

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case3:08-cv-02595-JCS Document48 Filed02/22/10 Page2 of 2

22nd February

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Joseph C. Spero

Case 3:08-cv-02595-JCS Document 49 Filed 02/23/10 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Samuel Johnson, III, Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 493]

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed in accordance with the following Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [4]) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law § 220.03), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in denying his motion to suppress drugs, a gun, and various incriminating oral statements of defendant on Fourth Amendment and/or *Miranda*grounds. The court erred in denying suppression of the drugs. In the absence of particularized suspicion or any grounds on the part of the officer to fear for his safety or that of his fellow officers, the officer lacked any justification for searching the pocket of defendant’s pants *(see, Terry v Ohio,*392 US 1; *People v Diaz,*81 NY2d 106, 109; *People v Bryant,*245 AD2d 1010, 1012-1013; *People v Brown,*204 AD2d 994). Further, the court erred in refusing to suppress, on Fourth Amendment grounds, the oral admission of defendant concerning his ownership of the pants. That statement was the unattenuated by-product of the illegal search of defendant’s pants and the seizure of the drugs *(see, Brown v Illinois,*422 US 590, 604-605; *Wong Sun v United States,*371 US 471, 484-488). Further, the statement must be suppressed because it was the product of custodial interrogation, not preceded by *Miranda*warnings, and not justified under the public safety exception to the *Miranda*rule *(see generally, New York v Quarles,*467 US 649, 655-657; *People v Chestnut,*51 NY2d 14, 23, n 8, *cert denied*449 US 1018; *People v Huffman,*41 NY2d 29, 34-35).

The court properly denied, however, defendant’s motion to suppress the gun, which was seized by police in plain view *(see, People v Funches,*89 NY2d 1005, 1007, *rearg denied*90 NY2d 889) during a search of the apartment to which the tenant consented *(see, People v Kemp,*273 AD2d 806; *People v Cruz,*272 AD2d 922, *lv granted*95 NY2d 859). Further, the court properly denied suppression of defendant’s statements concerning the gun. Those statements followed the giving of *Miranda*warnings, and were attenuated from any taint resulting from *876the preceding violations of the Fourth Amendment and *Miranda*rule (see, *New York v Harris,*495 US 14, 19; *Oregon v Elstad,*470 US 298, 314-318; *cf., Brown v Illinois, supra,*at 604-605).

Thus, we modify the judgment by granting defendant’s motion in part and suppressing the drugs and the oral admission of defendant concerning his ownership of the pants, reversing the conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing count two of the indictment. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Forma, J. — Criminal Possession Weapon, 3rd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001020424
<NAME>                        CONVERGENCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                                 1
<CURRENCY>                                        U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                            9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                     JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                       SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1.000
<CASH>                                                 543,510
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          624,161
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                            380,973
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     1,823,908
<PP&E>                                              18,351,638
<DEPRECIATION>                                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      41,572,941
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               19,766,810
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                101
<COMMON>                                                11,738
<OTHER-SE>                                             715,077
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        41,572,941
<SALES>                                              6,455,538
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     6,455,538
<CGS>                                                2,371,382
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       13,378,593
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3,029,268
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (11,253,458)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          (134,774)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (11,118,684)
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (11,118,684)
<EPS-BASIC>                                            (0.92)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            (0.92)



</TABLE>
(July 25, 1977)

#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Harry H. Boddie, Petitioner, v Ronald R. Emery, as Sheriff of Montgomery County, Respondent.

Application, pursuant to CPLR 7002 (subd [b], par 2), for writ of habeas corpus, denied. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
* 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. 96-60274

Conference Calendar

 

SAVANNAH RAMSEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE CITY OF LAUREL, MS;

LAUREL POLICE DEP’T, LAUREL, MS,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:94-CV-168-PS

- - - - - - - - - -

April 17, 1997

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Savannah Ramsey appeals from the judgment as a matter of law

following the presentation of evidence to the jury in her civil

rights action. Ramsey contends that her witnesses contradicted

defense witnesses and that city policy caused her injury.

Ramsey has failed to provide us with a transcript of the

trial of her action, as it is her duty to do. Powell v. Estelle,

959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th Cir. 1992). Because Ramsey has failed to

provide us with the transcript necessary to determine her
No. 96-60274

- 2 -

contentions, her appeal is frivolous.

APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARGARET HALL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-00114 CRB

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The parties hereto, by their counsel, having advised the Court that they have agreed to a

settlement of this case,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case be dismissed without prejudice; provided,

however, that if any party hereto shall certify to this Court, within thirty days, with proof of service

of a copy thereon on opposing counsel, that the agreed consideration for said settlement has not been

delivered over, the foregoing Order shall stand vacated and this case shall forthwith be restored to

the calendar to be set for trial.

Dated: April 26, 2010 

CHARLES R. BREYER,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-00114-CRB Document 84 Filed 04/29/10 Page 1 of 1
#### Rufus M. Potts, insurance superintendent of State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. Assured’s National Mutual Fire Insurance Company, plaintiff in error.

Objections to the report of a receiver appointed for an insurance company. Report approved in circuit court. Error to the Circuit Court of Sangamon county; the Hon. Frank W. Burton, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1921.

Reversed in part and remanded in part with directions.

Opinion filed July 10, 1922.

Wiley & Morey, for plaintiff in error, LeForgee, Black & Samuels, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Niehaus

delivered the opinion of the court.
§ 1508.315 May I use the services of an excluded person as a principal under a covered transaction? ( a ) You as a participant may continue to use the services of an excluded person as a principal under a covered transaction if you were using the services of that person in the transaction before the person was excluded. However, you are not required to continue using that person's services as a principal. You should make a decision about whether to discontinue that person's services only after a thorough review to ensure that the action is proper and appropriate.
( b ) You may not begin to use the services of an excluded person as a principal under a covered transaction unless the African Development Foundation grants an exception under § 1508.120.
#### § 1508.325 What happens if I do business with an excluded person in a covered transaction?

If as a participant you knowingly do business with an excluded person, we may disallow costs, annul or terminate the transaction, issue a stop work order, debar or suspend you, or take other remedies as appropriate.
#### George A. Lugert, Appellant, v. Sam Cohen et al., Respondents, and William C. Hawver, Jr., as Guardian ad Litem of Joseph S. Hawver, Appellant. Barbara E. Lugert, Appellant, v. Sam Cohen et al., Respondents, and William C. Hawver, Jr., as Guardian ad Litem of Joseph S. Hawver, Appellant.

Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Bergan and Coon, JJ., concur. [See 277 App. Div. 1063.]
#### In the Matter of William A. Hamm, Appellant, v. State Department of Education et al., Respondents.

Permission to prosecute appeal as a poor person granted. Appeal may be perfected upon one typewritten copy of the record and five typewritten copies of the brief. Motion in all other respects denied.
DIRECTV HOLDINGS LLC

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 DIRECTV Holdings LLC (the "Corporation") on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick T. Doyle, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my
knowledge:



/s/ PATRICK T. DOYLE Patrick T. Doyle Executive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerNovember 6, 2008


---



QuickLinks