alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Ground-water levels in theUnited States. Southwestern states.**
 
1956-60 | 1961-65 | 1966-70 | 1971-74
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.13:
Item Number:0625 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001104691
 
August 22, 2019
### §242e. Repealed. Pub. L. 93–353, title I, §102(a), July 23, 1974, 88 Stat. 362

Section, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, §307, as added Aug. 2, 1956, ch. 871, title II, §201, 70 Stat. 924; amended July 23, 1959, Pub. L. 86–105, §2, 73 Stat. 239; Oct. 30, 1970, Pub. L. 91–515, title VI, §601(b)(2), 84 Stat. 1311, provided for a professional nurse traineeship program for which authorization of appropriations were made through fiscal year ending June 30, 1964. Provision for the continuation of the program was made by the Nurse Training Act of 1964, which enacted section 297 et seq. of this title.
§ 201.42 Net worth exhibit. ( a ) Each applicant, except a qualified tax-exempt organization or cooperative association, must provide with its application a detailed exhibit showing the net worth of the applicant and any affiliates (as defined in § 201.34(f) of this part) when the proceeding was initiated. The exhibit may be in any form convenient to the applicant that provides full disclosure of the applicant's and its affiliates' assets and liabilities and is sufficient to determine whether the applicant qualifies under the standards in this subpart. The administrative law judge or the Commission may require an applicant to file additional information to determine its eligibility for an award.
( b ) Ordinarily, the net worth exhibit will be included in the public record of the proceeding. However, an applicant that objects to public disclosure of information in any portion of the exhibit and believes there are legal grounds for withholding it from disclosure may submit that exhibit in accordance with 17 CFR 201.190.
[47 FR 610, Jan. 6, 1982, as amended at 60 FR 32795, June 23, 1995]
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16

- 188 V

Filed: May 20, 2016

U npublished

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

SUSAN KELLER , *

*
Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

v. * Influenza ( “ Flu ” ) Vaccine ; Shoulder

* Injury Related to Vaccine Administration

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“ SIRVA ” ); Special Processing Unit AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“ SPU ”)

* Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Ronald C. Homer, Conway, Homer & Chin

- Caplan, P.C., Boston, MA

, for petitioner.

Traci R. Patton , U .S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey

, Chief Special Master:

On February 8, 2016

, Susan Ke ller ( “p etitioner ”) filed a petition for compensation

under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et

seq.

, 2 (the “Vaccine Act”)

. Peti tioner alleges that a s a result of receiving an influenza (“ flu ” ) vaccine on November 17, 2014, she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ( “ SIRVA ”). Petit ion at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit (“ SPU ”) of the Office of Special Masters.

On May 19, 2016

, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) R eport in which she conceded that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, respondent concluded that petitioner ’ s alleged injury is consistent with SIRVA, and that it was caused in fact by the flu vaccine she received on or about November 17, 2014. Id. Respondent further stated that no other causes for petitioner ’s SIRVA were identified, and records show that she suffered the sequela of her injury for

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance wi th

the E

- Government Act of 2002

. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012 ).2 more than six months. Id. Thus, based on the medical evidence, petitioner has met the statutory requirements for entitlement to compensation. Id.

In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence in the record

, the undersigned find s that petitioner is entitle d to compensation

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4315 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4315

    To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for unlimited 
eligibility for health care for mental illnesses for veterans of combat 
         service during certain periods of hostilities and war.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2012

  Mr. Carnahan (for himself, Mr. Rangel, Ms. Speier, Mrs. Capps, Mr. 
  Courtney, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Ms. Waters, Ms. Moore, Mr. Altmire, Ms. 
Chu, Ms. Hahn, and Ms. Richardson) introduced the following bill; which 
           was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for unlimited 
eligibility for health care for mental illnesses for veterans of combat 
         service during certain periods of hostilities and war.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Mental Health Accessibility 
Act''.

SEC. 2. UNLIMITED ELIGIBILITY FOR HEALTH CARE FOR MENTAL ILLNESSES FOR 
              VETERANS OF COMBAT SERVICE DURING CERTAIN PERIODS OF 
              HOSTILITIES AND WAR.

    (a) Eligibility.--Section 1710(e)(1) of title 38, United States 
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
    ``(F) Notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (3), a veteran who served 
on active duty in a theater of combat operations (as determined by the 
Secretary in consultation with the Secretary of Defense) during World 
War II, the Korean conflict, the Vietnam Era, the Persian Gulf War, 
Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, or any other 
period of war after the Persian Gulf War, or in combat against a 
hostile force during a period of hostilities (as defined in section 
1712A(a)(2)(B) of this title), is eligible for hospital care, medical 
services, and nursing home care under subsection (a)(2)(F) for any 
mental illness, notwithstanding that there is insufficient medical 
evidence to conclude that such illness is attributable to such 
service.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--Subparagraph (F) of section 1710(e)(1) of 
title 38, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply 
with respect to hospital care, medical services, and nursing home care 
provided on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
f8k090810ex10ii_yesdtc.htm


Exhibit 10.2




PROMISSORY NOTE


 


 



	
AMOUNT:  $ 10,000.00

	
DATE: September 9, 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  Ten Thousand Dollars ($_____$10,000.00__________) 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 December 9, 2010 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	 	 9-9-2010
	 The Borrower 	 	 Date:
	 	 	 
	 /s/ Joseph Noel	 	 9-9-2010
	 The Lender   	 	 Date:
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In  connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Internet Infinity,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003 (the
"Report"), I, George Paul Morris, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certify  that  to  my  knowledge:

     (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.

Dated:  November  19,  2003
                              /s/  George  Paul  Morris

                              George  Paul  Morris
                              Chief  Financial  Officer


     The  above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  1350) and is not being filed as part of
the  Form  10-QSB  or  as  a  separate  disclosure  document.







                                                                    Exhibit 32.1
                                                                Page 1 of 1 Page
§ 1006.970 Nonprocurement transaction. ( a ) *Nonprocurement transaction* means any transaction, regardless of type (except procurement contracts), including, but not limited to the following: ( 1 ) Grants.
( 2 ) Cooperative agreements.
( 3 ) Scholarships.
( 4 ) Fellowships.
( 5 ) Contracts of assistance.
( 6 ) Loans.
( 7 ) Loan guarantees.
( 8 ) Subsidies.
( 9 ) Insurances.
( 10 ) Payments for specified uses.
( 11 ) Donation agreements.
( b ) A nonprocurement transaction at any tier does not require the transfer of Federal funds.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7221

ROCKY DEE HINES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

EARL BESHEARS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District

Judge. (CA-98-2054-H)

Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 7, 1999

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rocky Dee Hines, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Rocky Dee Hines seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Hines v. Beshears, No. CA-98-2054-H

(D. Md. Aug. 6, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jason A. McIntyre, Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 511]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [1]) and two counts of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1], [2] [b]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495). The jury was entitled to credit the testimony of defendant’s accomplice connecting defendant to the crime, and the testimony of the accomplice was substantially corroborated by the physical evidence of defendant’s fingerprint at the crime scene together with the testimony of other witnesses, including the testimony of two witnesses concerning admissions made by defendant to them *(see,*CPL 60.22 [1]; *People v Shedrick,*66 NY2d 1015, 1018, *rearg denied*67 NY2d 758).

By failing to object to the charge, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court erred in failing to charge the jury that a prosecution witness, the girlfriend of defendant’s accomplice, could be considered an accomplice *(see, People v Kimbrough,*155 AD2d 935, *lv denied*75 NY2d 814). In any event, that contention lacks merit. The testimony of the accomplice with respect to that witness established only that she may have been an accessory after the fact, not an accomplice whose testimony required corroboration *(see, People v Brazeau,*162 AD2d 979, 980, *lv denied*76 NY2d 891). (Appeal from Judgment of Oswego County Court, Brunetti, J. — Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.
#### First Municipal Corporation, Appellant, v. Leslie Cobb et al., Defendants and Otto Borchardt et al., Respondents.

In an action for a declaratory judgment, the plaintiff appeals: (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered December 14, 1959, granting the motion of the defendants Borchardt and Brad Realty Corporation to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 106, suhd. 4); and (2) from the judgment entered thereon. Order and judgement affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
§ 129.5 Exemption from requirement for approval. ( a ) Unless paragraph (c) of this section applies, brokering activities undertaken for an agency of the U.S. Government pursuant to a contract between the broker and that agency are exempt from the requirement for approval provided that: ( 1 ) The brokering activities concern defense articles or defense services solely for the use of the agency; or
( 2 ) The brokering activities are undertaken for carrying out a foreign assistance or sales program authorized by law and subject to control by the President by other means, as demonstrated by one of the following conditions being met: ( i ) The U.S. Government agency contract with the broker contains an explicit provision stating the contract supports a foreign assistance or sales program authorized by law and the contracting agency has established control of the activity covered by the contract by other means equivalent to that established under this subchapter; or
( ii ) The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls provides written concurrence in advance that the condition is met.
( b ) Unless paragraph (c) of this section applies, brokering activities regarding a foreign defense article or defense service (see § 120.39 of this subchapter) are exempt from the requirement for approval when arranged wholly within and destined exclusively for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, any member country of that organization, Australia, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, or the Republic of Korea, except in the case of the defense articles or defense services specified in § 129.4(a)(2), for which approval is required.
( c ) Brokers engaging in brokering activities described in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section are not exempt from obtaining approval from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls if: ( 1 ) The broker is not registered as required by § 129.3;
( 2 ) The broker or any person who has a direct or indirect interest in or may benefit from the brokering activities, including any related defense article or defense service transaction, is ineligible as defined in § 120.16(c) of this subchapter; or
( 3 ) A country or person referred to in § 126.1 of this subchapter is involved in the brokering activities or such activities are otherwise subject to § 129.7.
( d ) Brokers who use the exemptions in this section must comply with all other provisions of this part 129.
[78 FR 52691, Aug. 26, 2013, as amended at 87 FR 16426, Mar. 23, 2022]
#### § 171.21 Definitions.

As used in this subpart, the following definitions shall apply:

*Individual* means a citizen or a lawful permanent resident (LPR) of the United States.

*Maintain* includes maintain, collect, use, or disseminate.

*Record* means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by the Department and that contains the individual's name or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a fingerprint, voice print, or photograph.

*System of records* means a group of any records under the control of the Department from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to an individual.
§ 19.6-9 Limitations. ( a ) Retirement benefits are subject to apportionment by court order under § 19.6-1(a)(6) only while the principal is living. Payment of apportioned amounts will be made only to a previous spouse and/or the children of the principal. Such payments will not be made to any of the following: ( 1 ) Heirs or legatees of the previous spouse;
( 2 ) Creditors of either the principal or the previous spouse; or
( 3 ) Assignees of either the principal or the previous spouse.
( b ) The amount of any court ordered payment may not be less than one dollar and, in the absence of compelling circumstances, shall be in whole dollars.
( c ) In honoring and complying with a court order, the Department shall not be required to disrupt the scheduled method of accruing retirement benefits or the normal timing for making such payments, despite the existence of any special schedule relating to a previous spouse or other beneficiary.
( d ) In cases where the court order apportions a percentage of the retirement benefits, PER/ER/RET will initially determine the amount of proper payment. That amount will only be increased by future cost-of-living increases unless the court directs otherwise.
#### Ileana Adlerman v. Edwin J. Adlerman.

Motion -for -leave to reargue -and for a - Stay -denied, with $10 costs. Concur — Botein, P. J., -Rabin, Valente, McNally -and 'Stevens, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4150 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4150

To remove from the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System the 
areas included in Indian Peninsula Unit FL-92 and Cape San Blas Unit P-
                             30 in Florida.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 7, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To remove from the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System the 
areas included in Indian Peninsula Unit FL-92 and Cape San Blas Unit P-
                             30 in Florida.

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

SECTION 1. REMOVAL FROM JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM 
              OF AREAS COMPRISING INDIAN PENINSULA UNIT FL-92 AND CAPE 
              SAN BLAS UNIT P-30, FLORIDA.

    The areas comprising John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources 
System Indian Peninsula Unit FL-92 and Cape San Blas Unit P-30 in 
Florida immediately before the enactment of this Act are not part of 
such system, and maps relating to such units are hereby removed from 
the maps referred to in section 4(a) of the Coastal Barrier Resources 
Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)).
                                 <all>
```
§ 1203.735-405 Information required. ( a ) *Employees.* Employees' statement of employment and financial interests required by the regulations in this part shall be submitted on the form, “Confidential Statement of Employment and Financial Interests (for use by Government Employees)”, Form OF-106, and shall contain all the information therein required.
( b ) *Special Government employees.* All special Government employees shall submit statements of employment and financial interest on the form, “Confidential Statement of Employment and Financial Interests (for use by Special Government Employees)”, Form AID 4-450 for IDCA, and shall contain all the information therein required.
( c ) *Interests of employee's relatives.* The interest of a member of an employee's family is considered to be an interest of the employee. The term “member of an employee's family” is defined in § 1203.735-102(f).
( d ) *Information not known by employees.* If any information required to be included on a statement of employment and financial interests or supplementary statement, including holdings placed in trust, is not known to the employee but is known to another person, the employee shall request that other person to submit information in the employee's behalf.
( e ) *Interests not required to be reported.* An employee need not disclose those financial interests described in § 1203.735-205(c) as being too remote or too inconsequential to affect the integrity of employees' services.
( f ) *Information not required.* The regulations in this part do not require an employee to submit on a statement of employment and financial interests or supplementary statement any information relating to the employee's connection with, or interest in, a professional society or a charitable, religious, social, fraternal, recreational, public service, civic, or political organization or a similar organization not conducted as a business enterprise. For the purpose of this section, educational and other institutions doing research and development or related work involving grants or money from or contracts with the Government are deemed “business enterprises” and are required to be included in an employee's statement of employment and financial interests.