alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §3150. Changed project circumstances

In any case in which a grant (including a supplementary grant described in section 3145 of this title) has been made by the Secretary under this subchapter (or made under this chapter, as in effect on the day before the effective date of the Economic Development Administration Reform Act of 1998) for a project, and, after the grant has been made but before completion of the project, the purpose or scope of the project that was the basis of the grant is modified, the Secretary may approve, subject (except for a grant for which funds were obligated in fiscal year 1995) to the availability of appropriations, the use of grant funds for the modified project if the Secretary determines that—

(1) the modified project meets the requirements of this subchapter and is consistent with the comprehensive economic development strategy submitted as part of the application for the grant; and

(2) the modifications are necessary to enhance economic development in the area for which the project is being carried out.

(Pub. L. 89–136, title II, §210, as added Pub. L. 105–393, title I, §102(a), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3606.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

For the effective date of the Economic Development Administration Reform Act of 1998, referred to in text, see section 105 of Pub. L. 105–393, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3121 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Feb. 11, 1999, see section 105 of Pub. L. 105–393, set out as a note under section 3121 of this title.
<PAGE>


                                                                    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 on Form 10-QSB of Sardy House,
LLC (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
Frank S. Peters, as President of the Company, and Daniel D. Delano, as Treasurer
of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to and solely for the purpose of
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge and belief, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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/ Frank S. Peters
----------------------------------
Frank S. Peters
President
December 23, 2003



  /s/ Daniel D. Delano
----------------------------------
Daniel D. Delano
Treasurer
December 23, 2003
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Wayne Lucky, Also Known as Williams, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 25, 1975 (the date on the clerk’s extract is July 28, 1975), convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal also brings up for review the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress a confession on the grounds that he had been denied his right to counsel and was the victim of an illegal detention. Case remitted to Criminal Term to hear and report on the following issues: (1) whether defendant’s mother requested the assistance of counsel prior to her son’s confession; (2) whether the defendant was in custody at the time he was picked up for questioning; (3) if so, whether there was probable cause for such custody; and (4) if not, whether the illegal detention tainted the confession and rendered it infirm; and appeal held in abeyance in the interim. The record before us is insufficient to permit a determination of this appeal. Hopkins, J. P., Latham, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 201

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 201 appear at 62 FR 38027, July 16, 1997.

#### § 201.66 Side payments.

Any payment which an importer makes to a supplier, whether or not indicated on the supplier's invoice and whether or not financed by USAID, in connection with an USAID-financed transaction, shall be disclosed by the supplier on the Supplier's Certificate and shall be considered as part of the actual purchase price in applying the rules of this subpart G.
{9} Excluded from conversion to bison grazing

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM

Medicine Bow

~T-"ALBANY

ao
‘Ss
<=
ind
4
a

1°) 10 20 40 60 80 100
Kilometers
0 5 10 20 30 40 50
Miles

Map 2-34
Bison Exclusion Areas
### §3713. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3713 was editorially reclassified as section 30101 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 3713, Pub. L. 90–351, title I, §103, as added Pub. L. 96–157, §2, Dec. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 1170, provided for an Office of Community Anti-Crime Programs, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 98–473.
### §3713c. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3713c was editorially reclassified as section 30105 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### Horne *et al. v.*Ricks Brothers.

April 12, 1912.

Action for damages. Before Judge Gilbert. Marion superior court. November *2,*1911.

*W. D. Crawford,*for plaintiffs in error. *Jule Felton,*contra.

Fish, C. J.

The plaintiffs in error asked leave to withdraw the bill of exceptions. The defendants in error moved to open the record and to have damages assessed against the plaintiffs in error for bringing the ease to this court for delay only. It does not so clearly appear that the writ of error was sued out for delay only as to require an award of damages. The plaintiffs in error are therefore allowed to withdraw the bill of exceptions, without damages against them.

*All the Justices concur.*
### §1862n–3. Duplication of programs

#### (a) In general

The Director shall review the education programs of the Foundation that are in operation as of December 19, 2002, to determine whether any of such programs duplicate the programs authorized under this Act.

#### (b) Implementation

As programs authorized under this Act are implemented, the Director shall—

(1) terminate any duplicative program being carried out by the Foundation or merge the duplicative program into a program authorized under this Act; and

(2) not establish any new program that duplicates a program that has been implemented pursuant to this Act.

#### (c) Report

#### (1) Review

The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall review the education programs of the Foundation to ensure compliance with the provisions of this section.

#### (2) Submission

Not later than 1 year after December 19, 2002, and annually thereafter as part of the annual Office of Science and Technology Policy's budget submission to Congress, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall complete a report on the review carried out under this subsection and shall submit the report to the Committee on Science and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.

(Pub. L. 107–368, §12, Dec. 19, 2002, 116 Stat. 3054.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This Act, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b), is Pub. L. 107–368, Dec. 19, 2002, 116 Stat. 3034, known as the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 2002 Amendment note set out under section 1861 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002, and not as part of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 which comprises this chapter.

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

#### Change of Name

Committee on Science of House of Representatives changed to Committee on Science and Technology of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 6, One Hundred Tenth Congress, Jan. 5, 2007. Committee on Science and Technology of House of Representatives changed to Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 5, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, Jan. 5, 2011.

#### Definitions

For definitions of terms used in this section, see section 4 of Pub. L. 107–368, set out as a note under section 1862n of this title.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4358 

To extend the temporary reduction of duty on 2-Methyl-5-nitrobenzenesulfonic 

acid. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 16, 2012 

Mr. MULVANEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary reduction of duty on 2-Methyl5-nitrobenzenesulfonic acid. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. 2-METHYL-5-NITROBENZENESULFONIC ACID. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.29.23 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 2-Methyl-5-nitrobenzenesulfonic acid) is amended by strik7 ing ‘‘12/31/2012’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2016’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

9 subsection (a) apply with respect to goods entered, or 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4358 IH

1 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

2 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank Hargraves,

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on February 27, 1975, unanimously affirmed. This case is remitted to the Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). No opinion. Concur—Birns, J. P., Evans, Capozzoli and Markewich, JJ.
### §300j–3a. Grants to public sector agencies

#### (a) Assistance for development and demonstration projects

The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall offer grants to public sector agencies for the purposes of—

(1) assisting in the development and demonstration (including construction) of any project which will demonstrate a new or improved method, approach, or technology for providing a dependably safe supply of drinking water to the public; and

(2) assisting in the development and demonstration (including construction) of any project which will investigate and demonstrate health and conservation implications involved in the reclamation, recycling, and reuse of wastewaters for drinking and agricultural use or the processes and methods for the preparation of safe and acceptable drinking water.

#### (b) Limitations

Grants made by the Administrator under this section shall be subject to the following limitations:

(1) Grants under this section shall not exceed 662/3 per centum of the total cost of construction of any facility and 75 per centum of any other costs, as determined by the Administrator.

(2) Grants under this section shall not be made for any project involving the construction or modification of any facilities for any public water system in a State unless such project has been approved by the State agency charged with the responsibility for safety of drinking water (or if there is no such agency in a State, by the State health authority).

(3) Grants under this section shall not be made for any project unless the Administrator determines, after consultation, that such project will serve a useful purpose relating to the development and demonstration of new or improved techniques, methods, or technologies for the provision of safe water to the public for drinking.

#### (c) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated for the purposes of this section $25,000,000 for fiscal year 1978.

(Pub. L. 95–155, §5, Nov. 8, 1977, 91 Stat. 1258; Pub. L. 95–477, §7(a)(1), Oct. 18, 1978, 92 Stat. 1511.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978, and not as part of the Public Health Service Act which comprises this chapter.

#### Amendments

1978—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 95–477 inserted "agricultural use or" after "drinking and".

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

#### Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Pub. L. 95–477, §7(a)(2), Oct. 18, 1978, 92 Stat. 1511, provided that: "This subsection [amending this section] shall become effective October 1, 1978."
f8k090810ex10iv_yesdtc.htm



Exhibit 10.4


 


PROMISSORY NOTE


 


 



	 
AMOUNT: $ 41,000.00

	 
DATE: October 6, 2010















For value received, the terms of this Promissory Note (the "Note") dictate that YesDTC, Inc. (the "Borrower") promises to pay to the order of Joseph Noel (the "Lender"), maintaining an address at 300 Beale Street, Suite 613, San Francisco, CA 94105 (the Lender's address), the principal sum of Forty One Thousand Dollars ($           $41,000.00            ) in U.S. currency (the "Principal Amount").




 


Use of Proceeds: Proceeds from the value received of this Note shall be used by the Borrower for general corporate purposes.


 


Interest: Interest on the Principal Amount shall be equal to 10.0% per annum. This amount shall be determined on a pro rata basis for any monthly or fractional basis thereof. Interest is not compoundable and may be paid monthly or in full at the end of the Borrowing Period.


 


Terms of Repayment: The entire Principal Amount shall be fully paid by the Borrower to the Lender on or before January 15, 2011 or within ninety days (90 days) from the date of this Note (the "Borrowing Period").


 


All or any part of the Principal may be prepaid at any time and from time to time without penalty.


 



 


This Promissory Note between the Borrower and Lender is signed and dated as per below.


 




	 /s/ Joseph Noel	 	 10-6-10
	 The Borrower 	 	 Date:
	 	 	 
	  /s/ Joseph Noel	 	 10-6-2010
	 The Lender   	 	 Date:
### §§3251 to 3254f. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections 3251 to 3254f were omitted in the general amendment of the Solid Waste Disposal Act by Pub. L. 94–580, §2, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2795.

Section 3251, Pub. L. 89–272, title II, §202, Oct. 20, 1965, 79 Stat. 997; Pub. L. 91–512, title I, §101, Oct. 26, 1970, 84 Stat. 1227, set out Congressional findings and declaration of purpose. See sections 6901 and 6902 of this title.

Section 3252, Pub. L. 89–272, title II, §203, Oct. 20, 1965, 79 Stat. 998; Pub. L. 91–512, title I, §102, Oct. 26, 1970, 84 Stat. 1228, defined terms. See section 6903 of this title.

Section 3253, Pub. L. 89–272, title II, §204, Oct. 20, 1965, 79 Stat. 998; Pub. L. 91–512, title I, §103, Oct. 26, 1970, 84 Stat. 1228, made provisions for research, demonstrations, training, and other activities relating to solid waste disposal. See section 6981 of this title.

Section 3253a, Pub. L. 89–272, title II, §205, as added Pub. L. 91–512, title I, §104(a), Oct. 26, 1970, 84 Stat. 1228, directed Secretary to study methods of recovering useful energy and materials. See section 6985 of this title.

Section 3254, Pub. L. 89–272, title II, §206, formerly §205, Oct. 20, 1965, 79 Stat. 999; renumbered §206, Pub. L. 91–512, title I, §104(a), Oct. 26, 1970, 84 Stat. 1228, directed Secretary to encourage interstate and interlocal cooperation. See section 6941 of this title.

Section 3254a, Pub. L. 89–272, title II, §207, as added Pub. L. 91–512, title I, §104(b), Oct. 26, 1970, 84 Stat. 1229, authorized Secretary to make grants for State, interstate, and local planning.

Section 3254b, Pub. L. 89–272, title II, §208, as added Pub. L. 91–512, title I, §104(b), Oct. 26, 1970, 84 Stat. 1230, authorized Secretary to make grants for resource recovery systems and improved solid waste disposal facilities. See section 6986 of this title.

Section 3254c, Pub. L. 89–272, title II, §209, as added Pub. L. 91–512, title I, §104(b), Oct. 26, 1970, 84 Stat. 1232, provided for recommendation of guidelines by the Secretary. See section 6907 of this title.

Section 3254d, Pub. L. 89–272, title II, §210, as added Pub. L. 91–512, title I, §104(b), Oct. 26, 1970, 84 Stat. 1232, authorized the Secretary to enter into contracts with and to make grants to eligible organizations. See section 6977 of this title.

Section 3254e, Pub. L. 89–272, title II, §211, as added Pub. L. 91–512, title I, §104(b), Oct. 26, 1970, 84 Stat. 1233, provided for applicability of solid waste disposal guidelines to Executive agencies. See section 6964 of this title.

Section 3254f, Pub. L. 89–272, title II, §212, as added Pub. L. 91–512, title I, §104(b), Oct. 26, 1970, 84 Stat. 1233, provided for a national disposal sites study for storage and disposal of hazardous wastes. See section 6921 et seq. of this title.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of DXP Enterprises, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/David R. Little


David R. Little


President and Chief Executive Officer





February 2, 2010





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
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

MITCHELL ENGINEERING,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-04022 SI

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

The City has filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s April 13,

2010 order granting in part and denying in part the City’s motion to compel the production of emails

from 25 Mitchell custodians. In that order, the Court denied the City’s motion as to 21 custodians

whose emails Mitchell stated it had already produced or was in the process of producing. The Court

directed the parties to meet and confer regarding the scope of the City’s proposed search terms with

respect to the remaining 4 custodians. 

The City now seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration in order to clarify certain facts

which it contends the Court misunderstood in issuing the April 13 order. The City asserts that Mitchell

has actually only produced emails from 14 custodians in connection with the Central case, and has not

produced or agreed to produce any emails in response to the specific search terms proposed in this case.

The City requests that all 25 custodians be included in the meet and confer ordered by the Court. The

City intends to propose one set of search terms for the 14 custodians who have been subject to some

production in the Central case, and a second set of terms for the remaining 11 custodians who have not

been subject to any production. The City asserts that it will not seek production of any emails that have

Case 3:08-cv-04022-SI Document 122 Filed 05/04/10 Page 1 of 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

2

already been produced in the Central case.

Having considered the papers submitted, the Court DENIES the City’s motion for leave to file

a motion for reconsideration and AMENDS its April 13, 2010 Order as follows:

The parties’ time to meet and confer regarding email production is extended to May 13, 2010.

During the meet and confer, the parties should discuss the scope of the search terms the City had

proposed as of April 13, 2010 with respect to all 25 custodians, with the limitation that the City may not

seek production of emails on topics with respect to which emails have already been produced in the

Central case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-04022-SI Document 122 Filed 05/04/10 Page 2 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

Case No. CV-08-2142-JF

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: STIPULATION AND REQUEST TO RESCHEDULE MOTION TO DISMISS

HEARING AND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

KAREN L. JONES-BOYLE, individually, and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA and

JPMORGAN CHASE, N.A.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CV-08-2142-JF

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE:

STIPULATION AND REQUEST TO

RESCHEDULE HEARING AND CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

On June 2, 2010, counsel for the parties filed a Joint Stipulation and Request to

Reschedule Hearing and Case Management Conference requesting that this Court reschedule the

hearings on the motions to dismiss and strike filed by Defendants JPMorgan Chase, N.A. and the

FDIC-Receiver from June 11, 2010, to June 25, 2010, and similarly reschedule the Case

Management Conference from June 11, 2010 to June 25, 2010.

Based on the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED, the Court will hold the hearing on the Defendants’ motions on June 25, 2010, and, as

appropriate following the hearing on the motions, the Court will conduct the Case Management

Conference in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:________________

The Honorable Jeremy Fogel

United States District Judge

**E-Filed 6/8/2010**

-------------------

6/8/2010

Case 3:08-cv-02142-EMC Document 113 Filed 06/08/10 Page 1 of 1