alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §4370j. Municipal Ombudsman

#### (a) Establishment

There is established within the Office of the Administrator an Office of the Municipal Ombudsman, to be headed by a Municipal Ombudsman.

#### (b) General duties

The duties of the Municipal Ombudsman shall include the provision of—

(1) technical assistance to municipalities seeking to comply with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act [33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.]; and

(2) information to the Administrator to help the Administrator ensure that agency policies are implemented by all offices of the Environmental Protection Agency, including regional offices.

#### (c) Actions required

The Municipal Ombudsman shall work with appropriate offices at the headquarters and regional offices of the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that a municipality seeking assistance is provided information regarding—

(1) available Federal financial assistance for which the municipality is eligible;

(2) flexibility available under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act; and

(3) the opportunity to develop an integrated plan under section 402(s) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act [33 U.S.C. 1342(s)].

#### (d) Information sharing

The Municipal Ombudsman shall publish on the website of the Environmental Protection Agency—

(1) general information relating to—

(A) the technical assistance referred to in subsection (b)(1);

(B) the financial assistance referred to in subsection (c)(1);

(C) the flexibility referred to in subsection (c)(2); and

(D) any resources developed by the Administrator related to integrated plans under section 402(s) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act [33 U.S.C. 1342(s)]; and

(2) a copy of each permit, order, or judicial consent decree that implements or incorporates such an integrated plan.

(Pub. L. 115–436, §4, Jan. 14, 2019, 132 Stat. 5560.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, referred to in subsec. (b)(1), is act June 30, 1948, ch. 758, as amended generally by Pub. L. 92–500, §2, Oct. 18, 1972, 86 Stat. 816, which is classified generally to chapter 26 (§1251 et seq.) of Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1251 of Title 33 and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Water Infrastructure Improvement Act, and not as part of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 which comprises this chapter.

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

#### Definitions

Pub. L. 115–436, §2, Jan. 14, 2019, 132 Stat. 5558, provided that: "In this Act [see Short Title of 2019 Amendment note set out under section 1251 of Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters]:

"(1) Administrator.—The term 'Administrator' means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

"(2) Municipality.—The term 'municipality' has the meaning given that term in section 502 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1362)."
### §300ee–32. Public information campaigns

#### (a) In general

The Secretary, acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, may make grants to public entities, and to nonprofit private entities concerned with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, and shall enter into contracts with public and private entities, for the development and delivery of public service announcements and paid advertising messages that warn individuals about activities which place them at risk of infection with the etiologic agent for such syndrome.

#### (b) Requirement of application

The Secretary may not provide financial assistance under subsection (a) unless—

(1) an application for such assistance is submitted to the Secretary;

(2) with respect to carrying out the purpose for which the assistance is to be provided, the application provides assurances of compliance satisfactory to the Secretary; and

(3) the application otherwise is in such form, is made in such manner, and contains such agreements, assurances, and information as the Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out this section.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXV, formerly title XV, §2522, as added Pub. L. 100–607, title II, §221, Nov. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 3103; renumbered title XXV, Pub. L. 101–93, §5(e)(1), Aug. 16, 1989, 103 Stat. 612; amended Pub. L. 102–531, title III, §312(d)(23), Oct. 27, 1992, 106 Stat. 3505.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1992—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102–531 substituted "Centers for Disease Control and Prevention" for "Centers for Disease Control".
#### In the Matter of Assunta Galietti, Respondent, v John Galietti, Appellant.

In a support proceeding, the husband appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated September 3, 1976, which, after a hearing, awarded petitioner-respondent $35 per week for support. Order *838affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The Family Court did not abuse its discretion by ordering the husband to pay support. Although the separation of the parties occurred a short time after their marriage, a husband has a legal obligation to support his wife (Family Ct Act, § 412). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani and Rabin, JJ., concur.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2611

To suspend temporarily the duty on Cyproconazole Technical. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 24, 2005

Mr. TERRY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on Cyproconazole Technical.

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

3 SECTION 1. CYPROCONAZOLE TECHNICAL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.90.15 Cyproconazole Technical – 

[Alpha-(4-Chlorophenyl)-

alpha-(1-cyclopropylethyl)–

1H-1–1,2,4-triazole-1-ethanol (CAS No. 94361–06–5) 

(provided for in subheading 

2934.99.12) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2

•HR 2611 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

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

Æ
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

IN RE: 

CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION

SECURITIES LITIGATION.

This Document Relates

To All Cases.

 /

No. C 08-01510 WHA

NOTICE SETTING

STATUS CONFERENCE

The Court shall hold a status conference at 8:00 A.M. ON MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2010, in

Courtroom 9. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-02983-WHA Document 34 Filed 04/15/10 Page 1 of 1
### §300ff–18. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–146, §6(b), May 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1367

Section, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXVI, §2608, as added Aug. 18, 1990, Pub. L. 101–381, title I, §101(3), 104 Stat. 585, authorized appropriations for fiscal years 1991 through 1995.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1996, see section 13 of Pub. L. 104–146, set out as an Effective Date of 1996 Amendment note under section 300ff–11 of this title.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**Section
      1350 Certification of Principal Financial 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 INX Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
      for the period ended June 30, 2007 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Brian Fontana, Vice President
      and
      Chief Financial 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.





By:
/s/
      BRIAN FONTANA


Brian
      Fontana, Vice President


and
      Chief
      Financial Officer





August
      6,
      2007






31
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

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-00986 SI

ORDER RE: ADMISSIBILITY OF

CERTAIN DOCUMENTS PRODUCED

BY SAMSUNG

Plaintiff AMD has filed a request for an order declaring that certain documents produced during

discovery by defendant Samsung shall be admissible at trial if offered by AMD to prove infringement

of two of the patents at issue in this case, the ’434 and ’200 patents. AMD asserts that the documents

at issue should be ruled admissible because Samsung has relied on these documents as supposed proof

of non-infringement and has admitted their authenticity, and because the documents are relevant, nonhearsay evidence. 

Samsung opposes the request on the grounds it is procedurally improper and premature. The

Court agrees. Even if Samsung has relied to some extent on the documents at issue, for example by

referring to some of the documents in its interrogatory responses, the Court is not prepared to rule at this

time that the entire body of documents covered by AMD’s request will be admissible at trial, thus

effectively preempting any objection that may arise in the eleven months currently remaining before

trial. As the trial draws nearer and AMD is able to identify the specific documents it seeks to offer, it

may seek to obtain a stipulation from Samsung or alternatively may move the Court for an order

regarding the admissibility of the specific documents at that time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 17, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00986-SI Document 319 Filed 02/17/10 Page 1 of 1
(July 7, 1977)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Floyd Johnson,

Appeal from an order of the Albany County Court, entered October 7, 1976, which denied, without a hearing, defendant’s motion to withdraw his pleas of guilty to a two-count indictment charging criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the first degree and possession of a drug and paraphernalia in the second degree. Appeal dismissed *sua sponte*due to the death of the defendant (see *People v Cutrone,*40 NY2d 988; *People v Mintz,*20 NY2d 753). Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Kane, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
#### Greenwood Trust Company, Plaintiff, v Gerald Houk, Defendant. Andrew F. Capoccia Law Centers, L. L. C., Appellant.

[716 NYS2d 477]

Mercure, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Keegan, J.), entered April 30, 1999 in Albany County, which, *inter alia,*imposed sanctions on defendant’s counsel.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover $2,163.19 allegedly due on a credit card account. Defendant, represented by Andrew F. Capoccia Law Centers, L. L. C. (hereinafter Capoccia), submitted an answer generally denying the operative allegations of the complaint and asserting as an affirmative defense that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. Plaintiff thereafter moved to strike defendant’s answer and for summary judgment for the relief demanded in the complaint.

The papers in support of plaintiff’s motion included an affidavit from one of its account managers stating that defendant had been sent statements, never disputed the amount owed and failed to make the required payments, an attorney’s affirmation, a copy of the credit card agreement in effect at the time of defendant’s default and copies of the account statements sent to defendant. In opposition to the motion, defendant submitted only an attorney’s affirmation. In reply, plaintiff *762contended that it was entitled to summary judgment based upon defendant’s failure to submit competent evidence raising a question of fact and also requested that defendant be sanctioned for interposing frivolous opposition to the summary judgment motion. Supreme Court awarded summary judgment in favor of plaintiff and, concluding that defendant’s opposition to the motion was undertaken primarily to delay the resolution of the litigation, imposed a sanction against Capoccia in the amount of $1,000. Capoccia appeals only the sanction. Plaintiff has filed no responding brief.

Here, as in *Household Fin. Corp. III v Dynan*(274 AD2d 656), the request for sanctions was first made in plaintiffs reply to defendant’s papers in opposition to the summary judgment motion. We agree with Capoccia that, because it was not allowed a reasonable opportunity to be heard on the issue of sanctions, there must be a remittal for that purpose *(see, id.).*

Capoccia’s additional contentions have been considered and found to be unavailing.

Cardona, P. J., Peters, Spain and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as imposed sanctions against Andrew F. Capoccia Law Centers, L. L. C.; matter remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision; and, as so modified, affirmed.
EXHIBIT 99.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Ronald R. Helm, Treasurer(Principal Financial Officer) of Pacific Biometrics, Inc., certify that:

1.  This quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. That the information contained in this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company. 

Date: February 13, 2003

|   |   | /s/  RONALDHELM |
|--------|--------|---------------------------|
|   |   |                           |
|   |   | **Ronald Helm Treasurer** |
|   |   |                      |
§ 229.510 Recruitment. ( a ) *Nondiscriminatory recruitment and hiring.* A recipient shall not discriminate on the basis of sex in the recruitment and hiring of employees. Where a recipient has been found to be presently discriminating on the basis of sex in the recruitment or hiring of employees, or has been found to have so discriminated in the past, the recipient shall recruit members of the sex so discriminated against so as to overcome the effects of such past or present discrimination.
( b ) *Recruitment patterns.* A recipient shall not recruit primarily or exclusively at entities that furnish as applicants only or predominantly members of one sex if such actions have the effect of discriminating on the basis of sex in violation of §§ 229.500 through 229.550.
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.                  

###### Agency for International Development

Pursuant to the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (Pub. L. 480, as amended), notice is hereby given that the Draft Guidelines for Pub. L. 480 Title II Cooperating Sponsor Results Reports and Resource Requests are being made available to interested parties for the required thirty (30) day comment period.

                    Individuals who wish to receive a copy of these draft guidelines should contact: Office of Food for Peace, Agency for International Development, RRB 7.06-153, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20523-7600. Individuals who have questions or comments on the draft guidelines should contact P.E. Balakrishnan at the above address, at (202) 712-1368 or                     *pebalakrishnan@usaid.gov*.                

                    The thirty-day comment period will begin on the date that this announcement is published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: December 22, 2003.

P.E. Balakrishnan,

Acting Deputy Director, Office of Food for Peace Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance.

[FR Doc. 04-278  Filed 1-6-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6116-01-M
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 

**E-filed 03/30/2010** 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

COMMITTEE FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS 

OF SONOMA COUNTY, et al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

COUNTY OF SONOMA, et al., 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C 08-4220 RS 

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO 

SEEK RECONSIDERATION 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9, defendants County of Sonoma, Sheriff-Coroner William 

Cogbill and Deputy Sheriff Morris Eric Salkin (collectively, “County defendants”) request leave to 

file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Order re Motions to Dismiss, entered on March 10, 

2010 (Docket No. 164).1

 Without prejudice to the possibility of a subsequent conclusion that 

sufficient grounds for reconsideration do not exist, leave to file a motion for reconsideration is 

hereby granted. County defendants shall file their motion no later than April 1, 2010, with briefing 

 

1

 The County defendants style their request as an “ex parte motion.” Under Civil Local Rule 7-10, 

an ex parte motion is one filed without notice to opposing party, and is permissible only where 

authorized under the circumstances by a statute, Federal Rule, local rule, or Standing Order. The 

County defendants, however, e-filed their motion, with the result that it was automatically served on 

all parties who have appeared. The motion, therefore, was not made “ex parte” within the meaning 

of the Local Rules, despite its label. 

Case 3:08-cv-04220-RS Document 173 Filed 03/30/10 Page 1 of 2
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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

to proceed as provided in Civil Local Rule 7. All discovery as to County Defendants herein is 

hereby stayed pending further order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 03/30/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:08-cv-04220-RS Document 173 Filed 03/30/10 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Robert H. Nodelman, Appellant, v Michael J. Codd, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, et al., Respondents.

—Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 24, 1977, in an article 78 proceeding which sought, *inter alia,*to annul respondents’ determination denying petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement, which order granted the petition to the extent of annulling said determination with the recommendation that a new examination be had by impartial physicians selected by the board of trustees and that there be a redetermination of petitioner’s application for a service connected pension after receipt of a further report by the medical board, unanimously dismissed, without costs or disbursements. Such further action, as recommended by Special Term, is not purely ministerial in character, but requires the exercise of quasi-judicial responsibility with respect to the issues, and hence the order is intermediate, and not final, and is not appealable as of right but only upon obtaining permission to appeal (CPLR 5701, subd [b], par 1; see *Matter of North Amer. Holding Corp. v Murdock,*6 AD2d 596, affd 6 NY2d 902). If permission to appeal had been sought, the application would have been denied. Concur—Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Evans, Lane and Sullivan, JJ.
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

March 29, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 5th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

XO Communications, Inc. received a manually signed audit report from Arthur
Andersen LLP (Andersen) dated February 6, 2002, for the consolidated financial
statements of XO Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2001
and 2000, and for each of the three years in the period ended December 31,
2001. In compliance with Release 33-8070, we have received certain
representations from Andersen, including that the audit was subject to
Andersens quality control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice
to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance
with professional standards and that there was appropriate continuity of
Andersen personnel working on the audits and availability of national office
consultation. The availability of Andersen personnel at foreign affiliates is
not relevant to our audit; therefore, the assurances from Andersen as to
foreign affiliates are not applicable to us.

Sincerely,



|/s/       
REESE K. FEUERMAN | Vice President, Corporate Controller
|---------------------------- | ------------------------------------
|Reese K. Feuerman
<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 ERF Wireless, Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned R.
Greg Smith, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of ERF Wireless,
Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 results of operations
          of the Company.

Dated: August 15, 2005

By:  /s/ R. Greg Smith
     -----------------
     R. Greg Smith
     Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
     (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial
     and Accounting Officer)