alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §19017. Research and dissemination to increase the participation of women and underrepresented minorities in STEM fields

#### (a) In general

The Director shall make awards on a competitive, merit-reviewed basis, to institutions of higher education or non-profit organizations (or consortia of such institutions or organizations), to enable such entities to increase the participation of women and underrepresented minorities in STEM studies and careers.

#### (b) Use of funds

An eligible entity that receives an award under this subsection shall use such award funds to carry out one or more of the following activities designed to increase the participation of women or minorities historically underrepresented in STEM, or both:

(1) Research to analyze the record-level data collected under sections 19152 and 19154 of this title, consistent with policies to ensure the privacy of individuals identifiable by such data.

(2) Research to study best practices for work-life accommodation.

(3) Research to study the impact of policies and practices that are implemented or are otherwise consistent with the purposes of this section.

(4) Mentoring programs that facilitate engagement of STEM professionals with students.

(5) Research experiences for undergraduate and graduate students in STEM fields.

(6) Outreach to elementary school and secondary school students to provide opportunities to increase their exposure to STEM fields.

#### (c) Dissemination activities

The Director shall carry out dissemination activities consistent with the purposes of this section, including—

(1) collaboration with other Federal research agencies and professional associations to exchange best practices, harmonize work-life accommodation policies and practices, and overcoming common barriers to work-life accommodation; and

(2) collaboration with institutions of higher education in order to clarify and catalyze the adoption of a coherent and consistent set of work-life accommodation policies and practices.

#### (d) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026, and 2027.

(Pub. L. 117–167, div. B, title III, §10328, Aug. 9, 2022, 136 Stat. 1545.)
Editorial Note on Part 142
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 142 appear at 68 FR 51359, Aug. 26, 2003.

§ 142.7 Designation of responsible employee and adoption of grievance procedures. ( a ) *Designation of responsible employee.* A recipient that employs 15 or more persons shall designate at least one person to coordinate its efforts to comply with this part.
( b ) *Adoption of grievance procedures.* A recipient that employs 15 or more persons shall adopt grievance procedures that incorporate appropriate due process for the prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging any action prohibited by this part.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 1423

_____________________________
J ACOBY T HOMAS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Al achua County

. Mark W. Moseley , Judge

. May 17, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. W ETHERELL , R AY , and O STERHAUS , JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_ ____________________________

Jacoby Thomas, pro se
, Appellant.2 Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel B. Steinberg, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
(February 7, 1978)

#### Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York, Plaintiff, v Swiss Corporation for Canadian Investments, Ltd., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants, and Sami Bsat, Respondent.

Order and judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, both entered March 16, 1977, granting summary judgment to the defendant Sami Bsat, unanimously reversed, on the law, to the extent appealed from, with one bill of *$60*costs and disbursements to appellants. The record before us discloses substantial issues of fact concerning defendant’s status as a holder in due course. Among the factual issues presented, bearing directly on the defendant’s status, are whether or not the defendant took the instruments: (1) for value; (2) in good faith; and (3) without notice that they were overdue or had been dishonored or of any defense against or a claim to them on the part of any person. (Uniform Commercial Code, § 3-302, subd [1]; § 3-303.) These checks are among a series of similar checks the status of which has been adjudicated by us in *Morgan Guar. Trust Co. v Swiss Corp. for Canadian Invs.*(60 AD2d 799). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Lane, Markewich and Sandler, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT ERIN RUBIN, A/K/A ERIN RUBIN OCHOA, Respondent

v. MICHAEL RAMON OCHOA, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 347 WAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 18th day of November, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
§ 224.39 Appeal to A.I.D. Administrator. ( a ) Any defendant who has filed a timely answer and who is determined in an initial decision to be liable for a civil penalty or assessment may appeal such decision to the A.I.D. Administrator by filing a notice of appeal with the A.I.D. Administrator in accordance with this section.
( b ) ( 1 ) A notice of appeal may be filed at any time within 30 days after the ALJ issues an initial decision. However, if another party files a motion for reconsideration under § 224.38, consideration of the appeal shall be stayed automatically pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration.
( 2 ) If a motion for reconsideration is timely filed, a notice of appeal may be filed within 30 days after the ALJ denies the motion or issues a revised initial decision, whichever applies.
( 3 ) The A.I.D. Administrator may extend the initial 30 day period for an additional 30 days if the defendant files with the A.I.D. Administrator a request for an extension within the initial 30 day period and shows good cause.
( c ) If the defendant files a timely notice of appeal with the A.I.D. Administrator, and the time for filing motions for reconsideration under § 224.38 has expired, the ALJ shall forward the record of the proceeding to the A.I.D. Administrator.
( d ) A notice of appeal shall be accompanied by a written brief specifying exceptions to the initial decision and reasons supporting the exceptions.
( e ) The representative for the Government may file a brief in opposition to exceptions within 30 days of receiving the notice of appeal and accompanying brief.
( f ) There is no right to appear personally before the A.I.D. Administrator.
( g ) There is no right to appeal any interlocutory ruling by the ALJ.
( h ) In reviewing the initial decision, the A.I.D. Administrator shall not consider any objection that was not raised before the ALJ unless a demonstration is made of extraordinary circumstances causing the failure to raise the objection.
( i ) If any party demonstrates to the satisfaction of the A.I.D. Administrator that additional evidence not presented at such hearing is material and that there were reasonable grounds for the failure to present such evidence at such hearing, the A.I.D. Administrator shall remand the matter to the ALJ for consideration of such additional evidence.
( j ) The A.I.D. Administrator may affirm, reduce, reverse, compromise, remand, or settle any penalty or assessment determined by the ALJ in an initial decision.
( k ) The A.I.D. Administrator shall promptly serve each party to the appeal with a copy of his/her decision and a statement describing the right of any person determined to be liable for a penalty or assessment to seek judicial review.
( l ) Unless a petition for review is filed as provided in 31 U.S.C. 3805 after a defendant has exhausted all administrative remedies under this part and within 60 days after the date on which the A.I.D. Administrator serves the defendant with a copy of his/her decision, a determination that a defendant is liable under § 224.3 is final and is not subject to judicial review.
#### § 232.13 Change in agreements.

No Noteholder will consent to any change or waiver of any provision of any document contemplated by this Guarantee without the prior written consent of USAID.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM VILLANUEVA, JR.,

Plaintiff, 

 v.

DOCTOR GHALY, Mental Health;

JOHN DOE, Mental Health; and Mrs.

JOHN DOE, Mental Health,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-1355 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by an inmate in county jail. The clerk sent him a

copy of the order of service on March 4, 2009, to the jail address where he last indicated that he

was located. On March 9, 2009, the order was returned as undeliverable with a notation that

plaintiff is no longer in custody. Plaintiff has not notified the clerk of any change of address. 

More than sixty days have passed since the mail was returned. This case is DISMISSED

without prejudice. See Local R. 3-11(b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27 , 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.08\VILLANUEVA1355.DSM.311.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-01355-WHA Document 18 Filed 01/27/10 Page 1 of 1
### §1437bbb–4. Program requirements

#### (a) Applicability of certain provisions

Notwithstanding section 1437bbb–3(a)(1) of this title, the Secretary may not waive, with respect to any participating jurisdiction, any of the following provisions:

(1) The first sentence of paragraph (1) of section 1437a(a) of this title (relating to eligibility of low-income families).

(2) Section 1437n of this title (relating to income eligibility and targeting of assistance).

(3) Paragraph (2) of section 1437a(a) of this title (relating to rental payments for public housing families).

(4) Paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 1437f(o) of this title (to the extent such paragraphs limit the amount of rent paid by families assisted with tenant-based assistance).

(5) Section 1437p of this title (relating to demolition or disposition of public housing).

#### (b) Compliance with assistance plan

A participating jurisdiction shall provide assistance using amounts received pursuant to this subchapter in the manner set forth in the plan of the jurisdiction approved by the Secretary under section 1437bbb–5(a)(2) of this title.

(Sept. 1, 1937, ch. 896, title IV, §405, as added Pub. L. 105–276, title V, §561, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2619.)
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Baker, Annunziata, and Overton Argued at Alexandria, Virginia

ADVANCED LOCK AND SAFE, INC. and NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

v. Record No. 2467-94-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON ROBERT S. HEIDORN JANUARY 11, 1996

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION Edward H. Grove, III (Brault, Palmer, Grove, Zimmerman, White & Mims, on brief), for appellants. Peter M. Sweeny (Peter M. Sweeny & Associates, on brief), for appellee.

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication. Advanced Lock and Safe, employer, and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, insurer, appeal the decision of the commission to award Robert Heidorn benefits for a work-related injury by accident. Employer contends that the injury did not arise out of Heidorn's employment. We affirm the commission's award. Robert Heidorn was employed as a locksmith, replacing the locks on interior office doors. Because of his height, he "got

down on his knees" on the floor beside each door instead of bending over to work on it. On the sixth or seventh door, Heidorn "bent down [and] had a pressure on my right knee and turned just a little bit." He felt a pain shoot through it just before his knees touched the ground. His treating physician- 2 - later opined that the cartilage in his knee had been torn. An accident arises out of the employment when a causal connection exists between the injury and the conditions under which the employer requires the work to be performed. County of

Chesterfield v. Johnson , 237 Va. 180, 183, 376 S.E.2d 73, 75 (1989). An employee's need to work in a bent over position and to extract himself from that position presents a hazard to which the employee would not otherwise be exposed. Richard E. Brown, Inc. v. Caporaletti , 12 Va. App. 242, 245, 402 S.E.2d 709, 711 (1991). A contortion of the body necessitated by the employee's work is risk created by the workplace. First Fed. Sav. & Loan v. Gryder , 9 Va. App. 60, 65, 383 S.E.2d 755, 759 (1989). The injury need not be caused by an extraordinary occurrence in or about the work performed, nor must the precipitating movement be unusual or require exertion. Grove v. Allied Signal, Inc. , 15 Va. App. 17, 22, 421 S.E.2d 32, 35 (1992). The commission found that Heidorn's injury was caused by kneeling down. It further found that his job required him to make that specific movement. We find credible evidence in the record to support this finding, and affirm the award of the

commission.

Affirmed.
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Norman D. Archer, as Executor of Violet B. Edwards, Deceased, Appellant. Eula Luncheon et al., Respondents.

In a contested accounting proceeding, the petitioner-executor-aceountant appeals from a decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, dated May 28, 1959, insofar as it sustains certain objections to his amended account, and from an order of said court, dated the same day, denying his motion for a new trial. Petitioner also appeals from two decisions of said court, dated, respectively, February 16, 1959, and March 18, 1960. Decree, insofar as appealed from, and order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Appeals from decisions dismissed, without costs. No appeal lies from a decision. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Brennan, JJ., concur.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CUNZHU ZHENG, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

YAHOO, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. CV-08-1068 MMC

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

() Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues

have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

(X) Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The

issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED the plaintiffs’ claims against the

Yahoo! Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice and plaintiffs’ claims against

People’s Republic of China are DISMISSED without prejudice.

Dated: February 1, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Tracy Lucero

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:08-cv-01068-MMC Document 99 Filed 02/01/10 Page 1 of 1
#### § 1008.630 Debarment.

*Debarment* means an action taken by a Federal agency to prohibit a recipient from participating in Federal Government procurement contracts and covered nonprocurement transactions. A recipient so prohibited is debarred, in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation for procurement contracts (48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4) and the common rule, Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement), that implements Executive Order 12549 and Executive Order 12689.
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

###### Office of the Secretary 

Notice is hereby given in accordance with Section 552b of Title 5, United States Code, that a meeting of the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission will be held on Thursday, February 1, 2005. 

The Commission was established pursuant to Public Law 99-647. The purpose of the Commission is to assist federal, state and local authorities in the development and implementation of an integrated resource management plan for those lands and waters within the Corridor. 

The meeting will convene on February 1, 2005 at 7 p.m. at the Whitinsville Town Hall at 7 Main Street, Whitinsville, MA 01588 for the following reasons: 

1. Approval of minutes. 

2. Chairman's report. 

3. Executive Director's report. 

4. Financial budget. 

5. Public input. 

It is anticipated that about twenty-five people will be able to attend the session in addition to the Commission members. 

Interested persons may make oral or written presentations to the Commission or file written statements. Such requests should be made prior to the meeting to: Michael Creasey, Executive Director. John H. Chafee, Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission, One Depot Square, Woonsocket, RI 02895, Tel.: (401) 762-0250. 

Further information concerning this meeting may be obtained from Michael Creasey, Executive Director of the Commission at the aforementioned address. 

Michael Creasey, 

Executive Director, BRVNHCC.

[FR Doc. 04-27518 Filed 12-15-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-RK-P
EXHIBIT 10.12

     AGREEMENT ON TRANSFER OF SHARES OF HENAN ZHONGPIN FOOD SHARE CO., LTD.
   DATED MAY 23, 2005 BETWEEN LIU ZHAO YANG AND HENAN ZHONGPIN FOOD CO., LTD.

             Liu Chaoyang transfers to Henan Zhongpin Food Co., Ltd. 746,478
shares of the common stock of Henan Zhongpin Food Share Co., Ltd. (the
"Operating Company"), par value RMB 1.00, representing approximately 4.9% of the
Operating Company's issued and outstanding shares. Upon completion of the stock
transfer, Liu Chaoyang shall still hold 82,942 shares of the Operating Company's
common stock, representing approximately 0.55% of the Operating Company's issued
and outstanding shares.
#### H. M. Rudolph, appellee, v. County of Ford et al., appellants.

Petition for writ of mandamus to compel- payment to petitioner of compensation as county superintendent of schools. Petition granted. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Ford county; the Hon. Frank Lindley, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1922. *Certiorari*denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).

Reversed.

Opinion filed July 10, 1922.

C. M. Swanson, for appellants. E. J. Pacey and Schneider *&*Schneider, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Heard

delivered the opinion of the court.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00104

- CV

Richard ABRAMS

, Appellant

v.

Marguerite Salinas a/k/a Marguerite Y. Salinas f/k/a Marguerite ABRAMS

and Ashely Abrams a/k/a Ashley N. Abrams,

Appellees

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1987

- CI

- 16750

Honorable Janet P. Littlejohn, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, th e trial court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED. Costs of this appeal are taxed against Appellant Richard Abrams.

SIGNED May 6, 2015.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
#### John B. Hyatt v. Lambert Suydam and Others, as Executors, etc.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with ten dollars costs. Present — Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Dowling, Page and Merrell, JJ.
#### Francis B. Mitchell, Respondent, v. Niagara, Lockport and Ontario Power Company and Another, Appellants.

Motion granted, amending order of modification and affirmance entered March 17,1920, so as to include the 10th and 11th findings of fact among the findings reversed, and by making new findings of fact in lieu of said 10th and 11th findings. [See 191 App. Div. 276.]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          11,804                          
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  174,184
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               185,988
<PP&E>                                       9,557,593
<DEPRECIATION>                              (1,789,184)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,954,397
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,645
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,954,397
<SALES>                                        953,011
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               958,044
<CGS>                                          859,624
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  859,624
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               120,813
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (22,393)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (22,393)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (22,393)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
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 Biometrics, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 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 of Finance
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:
      February 13, 2009/s/ Ronald R. HelmRonald
      R. Helm,Chief
      Executive Officer/s/ John P. JensenJohn
      P. JensenVice
      President of Finance and Controller