alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §193. Assistant chief

There shall be in the Children's Bureau, until otherwise provided for by law, an assistant chief, to be appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

(Apr. 9, 1912, ch. 73, §3, 37 Stat. 80; Mar. 4, 1913, ch. 141, §§3, 6, 37 Stat. 737, 738; 1946 Reorg. Plan No. 2, §1, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7873, 60 Stat. 1095; 1953 Reorg. Plan No. 1, §§5, 8, eff. Apr. 11, 1953, 18 F.R. 2053, 67 Stat. 631; Pub. L. 96–88, title V, §509(b), Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 695.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3 of act Apr. 9, 1912, also provided for compensation of assistant chief and for appointment and compensation of other employees of the bureau.

Section was formerly classified to section 18b of Title 29, Labor.

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

#### Change of Name

"Secretary of Health and Human Services" substituted in text for "Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare" pursuant to section 509(b) of Pub. L. 96–88, which is classified to section 3508(b) of Title 20, Education.

"Secretary of Labor" substituted for "Secretary of Commerce and Labor" pursuant to act Mar. 4, 1913. See note set out under section 191 of this title.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Functions of Federal Security Administrator transferred to Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and all agencies of Federal Security Agency transferred to Department of Health, Education, and Welfare by section 5 of Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1953, set out in as a note under section 3501 of this title. Federal Security Agency and office of Administrator abolished by section 8 of Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1953.

"Federal Security Administrator" substituted for "Secretary of Labor" pursuant to Reorg. Plan No. 2 of 1946. See note set out under section 191 of this title.
Exhibit 4.71


    Exhibit
      4.71

     

    AMENDMENT
      NO. 3 TO SECURITIES PURCHASE AGREEMENT

     

    This
      Amendment No. 3 to Securities Purchase Agreement, dated as of August 1, 2005,
      shall serve to amend the Securities Purchase Agreement, dated as of December
      17,
      2004, (as amended, the “Agreement”), by and among Pacificap Entertainment
      Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation, with its headquarters located at 12268
      Via
      Latina, Del Mar, California 92914, and each of the Buyers set forth in the
      Agreement.

    1.  The
      undersigned hereby agree to amend Section 4(l) of the Agreement to provide
      that
      the Buyers will fund $170,000 of the subsequent closings referred to in that
      section on the date hereof, with the remaining amounts to be funded as provided
      in the Agreement.

    2.  All
      other
      provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

    


     

    


     

    [Signature
      Page Follows]

    
      
        
        

      

      
        
        

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

     

    


    



    ACCEPTED
      AND AGREED:

    


    PACIFICAP
      ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC.

    


    


    By:
      /s/
      EDWARD LITWAK

    Edward
      Litwak

    President

    


    


    AJW
      PARTNERS, LLC

    By:
      SMS
      Group, LLC 

    


    


    By:
      /s/
      COREY S. RIBOTSKY

    Corey
      S.
      Ribotsky

    Manager

    


    


    NEW
      MILLENNIUM CAPITAL PARTNERS II, LLC

    By:
      First
      Street Manager II, LLC

    


    


    By:
      /s/
      COREY S. RIBOTSKY

    Corey
      S.
      Ribotsky

    Manager

    


    


    AJW
      OFFSHORE, LTD.

    By:
      First
      Street Manager II, LLC

    


    


    By:
      /s/
      COREY S. RIBOTSKY

    Corey
      S.
      Ribotsky

    Manager

    


    


    AJW
      QUALIFIED PARTNERS, LLC

    By:
      AJW
      Manager, LLC

    


    


    By:
      /s/
      COREY S. RIBOTSKY

    Corey
      S.
      Ribotsky

    Manager
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [ES-960-1910-BJ-4489, ES-052572, Group No. 37, Missouri] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of filing of plat of survey; Missouri.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of survey of the lands described below in the BLM-Eastern States, Springfield, Virginia, 30 calendar days from the date of publication in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bureau of Land Management, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153. Attn: Cadastral Survey. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This survey was requested by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

The lands we surveyed are: 

### Fifth Principal Meridian, Missouri, 

T. 49 and 50 N., Rs. 2 and 3 E. 

The plat of survey represents the dependent resurvey of portions of the township boundaries, portions of the subdivisional lines and portions of various U.S. Surveys and the survey of the Lock and Dam No. 25 acquisition boundary, in Townships 49 and 50 North, Ranges 2 and 3 East, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, in the State of Missouri, and was accepted on November 30, 2004. 

We will place a copy of the plat we described in the open files. It will be made available to the public as a matter of information. 

Dated: November 30, 2004. 

Stephen D. Douglas, 

Chief Cadastral Surveyor. 

[FR Doc. 04-27517 Filed 12-15-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P
# Subpart 549.1 - General Principles

**Parent topic:**Part 549 - Termination of Contracts

## 549.111 Review of proposed settlements.

The HCA may establish procedures for the review and approval of settlement agreements at a level above the contracting officer.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 Section 1350 Certification of Principal Executive Officer  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 I-Sector Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2005 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, I, James H. Long, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 2.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  /s/    JAMES H. LONG
James H. Long
Chief Executive Officer May 16, 2005
Case 3:08-cv-00860-CRB Document 6 Filed 04/08/10 Page 1 of 2Case 3:08-cv-00860-CRB Document 6 Filed 04/08/10 Page 2 of 2
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4385 

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit employers to pay 

higher wages to their employees. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 18, 2012 

Mr. ROKITA (for himself, Mr. GOWDY, Mr. QUAYLE, Mr. SCHWEIKERT, Mrs. 

BACHMANN, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. CHAFFETZ, Mr. 

MCHENRY, Mr. ROONEY, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. 

DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. GRAVES of Georgia, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. 

MULVANEY, Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan, Mr. FLORES, Mr. HARRIS, Mr. 

YODER, Mr. HUELSKAMP, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. MANZULLO, and Mr. AKIN) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to permit 

employers to pay higher wages to their employees. 

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 ‘‘Rewarding Achieve5 ment and Incentivizing Successful Employees Act’’ or the 

6 ‘‘RAISE Act’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4385 IH

1 SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF HIGHER WAGES. 

2 Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 

3 U.S.C. 159(a)) is amended— 

4 (1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ after ‘‘(a)’’; and 

5 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(2) Notwithstanding a labor organization’s exclusive 

7 representation of employees in a unit, or the terms and 

8 conditions of any collective bargaining contract or agree9 ment then in effect, nothing in either— 

10 ‘‘(1) section 8(a)(1) or 8(a)(5), or 

11 ‘‘(2) a collective bargaining contract or agree12 ment renewed or entered into after the date of en13 actment of the RAISE Act, 

14 shall prohibit an employer from paying an employee in the 

15 unit greater wages, pay, or other compensation for, or by 

16 reason of, his or her services as an employee of such em17 ployer, than provided for in such contract or agreement.’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
(February 23, 1978)

#### Rudolph Drayton, Petitioner, v Gerald S. Held, as Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to prohibit the further prosecution of petitioner under Kings County Indictment No. 821-1977 or, in the alternative, to disqualify the respondent Justice from further participation in the event of a retrial. Petition granted to the extent that the retrial should be held before a Justice other than the respondent Held. Proceeding otherwise dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. While what occurred upon the first trial of the indictment must be deplored, the record makes it clear that petitioner was not prejudiced thereby and that the mistrial resulted from the granting of his motion for such relief. Upon the argument of this application, the District Attorney stipulated that, upon the retrial, he would call no witnesses other than those called by him on the first trial, unless the petitioner should call additional alibi witnesses. Damiani, J. P., Suozzi, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
### §16136. Effect of part

Nothing in this part affects any authority under the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) in existence on the day before August 8, 2005.

(Pub. L. 109–58, title VII, §796, Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 844.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Clean Air Act, referred to in text, is act July 14, 1955, ch. 360, 69 Stat. 322, which is classified generally to chapter 85 (§7401 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 7401 of this title and Tables.
EXHIBIT
32.1








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 Pacific Biomarkers, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Ronald R. Helm,
Chief Executive Officer, and John P. Jensen, Vice President and Controller, of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.           the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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






Date: May
13, 2010






/s/ Ronald R. Helm


Ronald R.
Helm,


Chief
Executive Officer






/s/ John P. Jensen


John P.
Jensen


Vice
President and Controller








-
26 -
January 30, 2006


 


Ortec International, Inc.


3960 Broadway


New York, NY  10032


 


Gentlepersons:


 


1.         The undersigned, being the holders of 1271.9129 outstanding shares of Ortec International, Inc.’s (the “Company”) Series D Convertible Preferred Stock (the “Series D Preferred Stock”), hereby agree to exchange each share of Series D Preferred Stock owned by the undersigned for one share of the Company’s new Series D-1 Convertible Preferred Stock (the “Series D-1 Preferred Stock”).  The undersigned understands that the only differences between the Series D Preferred Stock and the Series D-1 Preferred Stock are:


 



	
             
 	
            (a)
 	
            The liquidation preference for the Series D-1 Preferred Stock will, instead of the Ten Thousand ($10,000) Dollars per share for the Series D Preferred Stock, be the greater of
 



 

 



	
            (i)  
 	
            Ten ($10) Dollars per share of Series D-1 Preferred Stock, or
 



 

 


	
             
 	
            (ii)
 	
            an amount per share of Series D-1 Preferred Stock calculated by taking the total amount available for distribution to holders of all of the Company’s outstanding Common Stock before deduction of any preference payments for the Series D-1 Preferred Stock, divided by the Total of (x) all of the then outstanding shares of the Company’s Common stock, plus (y) all of the shares of the Company’s Series D-1 Preferred Stock on an as converted basis, and multiplied by 4,000. 
 



 

 



	
             
 	
            (b)
 	
            The Conversion Price for the Series D-1 Preferred Stock shall be $0.0025 per share of Series D-1 Preferred Stock instead of Two Dollars and Fifty Cents ($2.50) per share Series D Preferred Stock.
 



 

 



	
             
 	
            (c)
 	
            The number of shares of Series D-1 Preferred Stock that the Company will be authorized to issue shall be Fifty Thousand (50,000) shares instead of Ten Thousand (10,000) shares of Series D Preferred Stock that the Company is authorized to issue.
 



 

 



	
            2.
 	
            The undersigned each represent that:
 



 

 


	
             
 	
            (a)
 	
            it is an “accredited investor” as that term is defined in Rule 501 of Regulation D promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Act) and
 



 

 


 






 



	
             
 	
            (b)
 	
            the undersigned is acquiring such shares of Series D-1 Preferred Stock for investment and not with a view to distribution thereof.
 



 

 



	
            Yours very truly,
 



 


 


 



	
            SDS Capital Group SPC, Ltd.
 



 


 


By:        /s/ Steve DerbyPrint name: Steve Derby



	
            Title: Director
 



Date: January 31, 2006



	
            Number of Shares: 1271.9129
 



 


 


 






 






 


The foregoing is agreed to and accepted.


 



	
            Ortec International, Inc.
 



 


 


By:        /s/ Ron LipsteinPrint name:  Ron Lipstein



	
            Title:  Chief Executive Officer
 
	
            Date: 1/31/06
§ 229.225 Educational institutions eligible to submit transition plans. ( a ) *Application.* This section applies to each educational institution to which §§ 229.300 through 229.310 apply that: ( 1 ) Admitted students of only one sex as regular students as of June 23, 1972; or
( 2 ) Admitted students of only one sex as regular students as of June 23, 1965, but thereafter admitted, as regular students, students of the sex not admitted prior to June 23, 1965.
( b ) *Provision for transition plans.* An educational institution to which this section applies shall not discriminate on the basis of sex in admission or recruitment in violation of §§ 229.300 through 229.310.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-1244
WILLIAM H. LEIGH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ELIZABETH CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY; BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-96-6-2-H-1) Submitted: April 17, 1997 Decided: April 30, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William H. Leigh, Appellant Pro Se. John David Leidy, HORNTHAL, RILEY, ELLIS & MALAND, Elizabeth City, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: William H. Leigh appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants, and dismissing his employment discrimination action alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-16 (West 1994), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 (1994).Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Leigh failed to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973); Alvarado v. Board of Trustees , 928 F.2d 118, 121 (4th Cir. 1991). See also O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp. , ___ U.S. ___, 64 U.S.L.W. 4243 (U.S. April 1, 1996) (No. 95-354). Moreover, Leigh failed to rebut the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons Defendants proffered to support their decision to hire another individual to the position Leigh sought. See Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine , 450 U.S. 248, 254-56 (1981); Conkwright v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. , 933 F.2d 231, 234-35 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we cannot say that the district court's finding of non-discrimination was clearly erroneous. Anderson v. City of Bessemer , 470 U.S. 564, 574 (1985). We therefore affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Leigh v. Elizabeth City Housing Authority, No. CA-96-6-2-H-1 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 6, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-3 rials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
§ 227.400 Penalties. ( a ) Any person who makes an expenditure prohibited herein shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such expenditure.
( b ) Any person who fails to file or amend the disclosure form (see appendix B) to be filed or amended if required herein, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
( c ) A filing or amended filing on or after the date on which an administrative action for the imposition of a civil penalty is commenced does not prevent the imposition of such civil penalty for a failure occurring before that date. An administrative action is commenced with respect to a failure when an investigating official determines in writing to commence an investigation of an allegation of such failure.
( d ) In determining whether to impose a civil penalty, and the amount of any such penalty, by reason of a violation by any person, the agency shall consider the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, the effect on the ability of such person to continue in business, any prior violations by such person, the degree of culpability of such person, the ability of the person to pay the penalty, and such other matters as may be appropriate.
( e ) First offenders under paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section shall be subject to a civil penalty of $10,000, absent aggravating circumstances. Second and subsequent offenses by persons shall be subject to an appropriate civil penalty between $10,000 and $100,000, as determined by the agency head or his or her designee.
( f ) An imposition of a civil penalty under this section does not prevent the United States from seeking any other remedy that may apply to the same conduct that is the basis for the imposition of such civil penalty.
(February 14, 1961)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Max Brod, Appellant.

Judgment of the Court of Special Sessions, New York County, convicting defendant of the crimes of knowingly possessing policy writings, knowingly possessing articles commonly used in the game of policy and receiving money in the game of policy, and sentencing defendant to serve a term of six months in the Workhouse, unanimously affirmed insofar as it convicts defendant under the first and second counts of the information and unanimously reversed on the law and the facts insofar as it convicts defendant under the third count of the information and sentences defendant to serve six months in the Workhouse. The third count of the information, charging the defendant with the crime of receiving money in the game of policy is dismissed, and the matter is remanded to the Court of Special Sessions for resentence on the conviction of defendant on the first and second counts of the information. There is no proof in the record to sustain the conviction on the third count in the information, and for all that appears, the learned Justice of the Court of Special Sessions in fixing the sentence did so on the basis of a conviction of the defendant of all three counts of the information. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.