alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 201

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 201.40 Purpose.

This subpart sets forth certain provisions of general application to transactions subject to this part.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6127

JESSIE BENJAMIN KINDLEY, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH RANSON; ROBERT W. WALKER, Magistrate; RON ANGELONE, Executive Director, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-844-2) Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 27, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jessie Benjamin Kindley, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jessie Benjamin Kindley, Sr., a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Kindley v. Ranson , No. CA-01-844-2 (E.D. Va. Dec. 18, 2001); see also Linda R.S. v. Richard D. , 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (noting that a private citizen has no enforceable right to institute a criminal prosecution). 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
### §254. Interdepartmental work

Nothing contained in this part shall affect the authority of the Service to furnish any materials, supplies, or equipment, or perform any work of services, requested in accordance with sections 1535 and 1536 of title 31, or the authority of any other executive department to furnish any materials, supplies, or equipment, or perform any work or services, requested by the Department of Health and Human Services for the Service in accordance with that section.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, §327, 58 Stat. 697; 1953 Reorg. Plan No. 1, §§5, 8, eff. Apr. 11, 1953, 18 F.R. 2053, 67 Stat. 631; Pub. L. 96–88, title V, §509(b), Oct. 17, 1979, 93 Stat. 695.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

"Sections 1535 and 1536 of title 31" substituted in text for "section 7 of the Act of May 21, 1920, as amended (U.S.C., 1940 edition, title 31, sec. 686)" on authority of Pub. L. 97–258, §4(b), Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1067, the first section of which enacted Title 31, Money and Finance.

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

#### Change of Name

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

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Functions of Public Health Service, Surgeon General of Public Health Service, and all other officers and employees of Public Health Service, and functions of all agencies of or in Public Health Service transferred to Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare by Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1966, eff. June 25, 1966, 31 F.R. 8855, 80 Stat. 1610, set out as a note under section 202 of this title.

Functions of Federal Security Administrator transferred to Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and all agencies of Federal Security Agency transferred to Department of Health, Education, and Welfare by section 5 of Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1953, set out as a note under section 3501 of this title. Federal Security Agency and office of Administrator abolished by section 8 of Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1953.
§ 1423.27 Contents of exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge's decision. ( a ) Exceptions to an Administrative Law Judge's decision shall: ( 1 ) Set forth specifically the questions upon which exceptions are taken;
( 2 ) Identify that part of the Administrative Law Judge's decision to which objection is made; and
( 3 ) Designate by precise citation of page the portions of the record relied on, state the grounds for the exceptions, and include the citation of authorities unless set forth in a supporting brief.
( b ) Any exception to a ruling, finding or conclusion which is not specifically urged shall be deemed to have been waived. Any exception which fails to comply with the foregoing requirements may be disregarded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information from At Home Corporation's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2000 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         201,513
<SECURITIES>                                   300,769
<RECEIVABLES>                                   77,185
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (3,632)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               619,636
<PP&E>                                         244,596
<DEPRECIATION>                                (117,816)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,724,685
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          254,030
<BONDS>                                        738,083
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    408,658
<COMMON>                                     9,556,140
<OTHER-SE>                                  (2,326,608)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,724,685
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               138,063
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   57,239
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               755,723
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (11,031)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (676,521)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (676,521)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (676,521)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (1.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.75)


</TABLE>
Case 3:08-cv-03890-CRB   Document 6   Filed 04/07/10   Page 1 of 2

Case 3:08-cv-03890-CRB   Document 6   Filed 04/07/10   Page 2 of 2
### §3515. Performance of one-year contracts during two fiscal years

Funds provided in this Act or subsequent Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts may be used for one-year contracts which are to be performed in two fiscal years, so long as the total amount for such contracts is obligated in the year for which the funds are appropriated.

(Pub. L. 102–394, title II, §208, Oct. 6, 1992, 106 Stat. 1811.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to this section were contained in the following prior appropriation acts:

Pub. L. 102–170, title II, §208, Nov. 26, 1991, 105 Stat. 1127.

Pub. L. 101–517, title II, §208, Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 2209.

Pub. L. 101–166, title II, §210, Nov. 21, 1989, 103 Stat. 1177.

Pub. L. 100–202, §101(h) [title II, §210], Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1329–256, 1329–274.

Pub. L. 99–500, §101(i) [H.R. 5233, title II, §210], Oct. 18, 1986, 100 Stat. 1783–287, and Pub. L. 99–591, §101(i) [H.R. 5233, title II, §210], Oct. 30, 1986, 100 Stat. 3341–287.

Pub. L. 99–178, title II, §210, Dec. 12, 1985, 99 Stat. 1120.
### §1769h. Repealed. Pub. L. 111–296, title IV, §441(a)(14), Dec. 13, 2010, 124 Stat. 3264

Section, act June 4, 1946, ch. 281, §27, as added Pub. L. 103–448, title I, §124, Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4732; amended Pub. L. 105–220, title IV, §414(d), Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1242; Pub. L. 105–336, title I, §113, Oct. 31, 1998, 112 Stat. 3157, related to accommodation of the special dietary needs of individuals with disabilities.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 2010, except as otherwise specifically provided, see section 445 of Pub. L. 111–296, set out as an Effective Date of 2010 Amendment note under section 1751 of this title.
### §3933. Organization of corporation

#### (a) Appointment of incorporators; Chairman; initial board of directors

The President of the United States shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, incorporators of the corporation, one of whom shall be designated by the President to serve as chairman. The incorporators shall serve as the initial board of directors until the first annual meeting of stockholders or until their successors are elected and have qualified.

#### (b) Action by incorporators; filing articles of incorporation

The incorporators shall take whatever actions are necessary or appropriate to establish the corporation, including the filing of articles of incorporation as approved by the President.

#### (c) Initial offering of stock in corporation and of interests in partnership; terms of offering

The incorporators shall also arrange for an initial offering of shares of stock in the corporation and of interests in the partnership described in section 3937 of this title. If the incorporators deem it advisable in order to carry out the purposes of this chapter, the initial offering may be made upon terms which require the purchase of other securities of the corporation or of interests in such partnership.

(Pub. L. 90–448, title IX, §903, Aug. 1, 1968, 82 Stat. 547.)
#### Robert E. Gibeault et al., Appellants, v Home Insurance Company et al., Respondents.

[716 NYS2d 410]

Crew III, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Keniry, J.), entered July 16, 1999 in Saratoga County, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiff Robert E. Gibeault (hereinafter Gibeault) was involved in two automobile accidents in 1983. In 1984, Gibeault applied to defendant Home Insurance Company for first-party (no-fault) benefits for injuries related to the first 1983 accident. Following denial of his application, Gibeault requested arbitration of his claim and was awarded $15,626 for lost earnings resulting from both motor vehicle accidents. Thereafter, Gibeault filed additional claims for benefits and, following Home’s denial thereof, he again sought arbitration. By decision dated April 21, 1988, an arbitrator denied Gibeault’s claims. Thereafter, Gibeault successfully sought vacatur of that award and, on August 9, 1988, the matter was remitted for a new arbitration hearing.

Instead of seeking a new hearing, however, Gibeault and his spouse, derivatively, commenced the instant action asserting five causes of action based upon defendants’ alleged breach of contract, misrepresentation and bad faith. In June 1994, defendants moved for partial summary judgment, as the result of which Supreme Court dismissed all of plaintiffs’ causes of action except that which sought compensatory damages based upon breach of contract. Upon appeal we affirmed, noting that *681plaintiffs’ claim for compensatory damages based upon defendants’ allegedly wrongful denial of benefits was not subject to arbitration (221 AD2d 826). In the ensuing SVa years, Gibeault apparently took no action to obtain a new arbitration hearing, as a consequence of which defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ remaining claims for failure to state a cause of action. Supreme Court granted defendants’ motion and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. As noted in our prior decision, plaintiffs’ election to proceed in an arbitral forum precluded litigation of any arbitral issues in a judicial forum. While it is true that plaintiffs’ claims for compensatory damages are not subject to arbitration *(see, Monroe v Providence Washington Ins. Co.,*126 AD2d 929), defendants’ alleged breach of contract, i.e., wrongfully denying benefits, is subject to arbitration and Gibeault’s success in that forum is a predicate to continuing the instant litigation. On this point, while we recognize that the issue of whether the arbitration proceeding has been abandoned ordinarily is a question for the arbitrator *(see, New York Tel. Co. v Speciner,*55 NY2d 1002, 1004), we hold that Gibeault’s more than 10-year delay in seeking a new hearing constitutes abandonment as a matter of law, and any arbitral determination to the contrary would be arbitrary and capricious *(see, Matter of Finkelstein [Harris],*17 AD2d 137, 138-139, *lv denied*12 NY2d 646). Accordingly, Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint.

Mercure, J. P., Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
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 

 1

Order & Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum to Transport Inmate (C 08-3907 SI) 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EUREKA DIVISION 

GERRY D. WILLIAMS, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

R. METCALFE, et al., 

Defendants.

C 08-3907 SI/NJV 

ORDER & WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS AD 

TESTIFICANDUM TO TRANSPORT 

PLAINTIFF GERRY D. WILLIAMS, 

CDCR No. D-77087

Plaintiff, GERRY D. WILLIAMS, CDCR No. D-77087, a necessary and material witness 

in proceedings in this case beginning on August 11, 2010, at 1:00 p.m., is confined at Pleasant 

Valley State Prison in the custody of Warden James A. Yates. To secure this inmate’s attendance 

at the settlement conference scheduled for August 11, 2010 at California State Prison, Solano, it 

is necessary that a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum issue commanding the custodian of 

Gerry D. Williams, CDCR No. D-77087, to produce said inmate at California State Prison, 

Solano, 2100 Peabody Road, Vacaville, California 95687, the Honorable Nandor Vadas 

presiding, beginning on August 11, 2010, at 1:00 p.m. 

// 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that: 

Case 3:08-cv-03907-SI Document 55 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 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 

 2

Order & Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum to Transport Inmate (C 08-3907 SI) 

1. A Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum issue, under the seal of this court, 

commanding the Warden of Pleasant Valley State Prison and the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation to produce inmate GERRY D. WILLIAMS, CDCR No. D77087, for a settlement conference at California State Prison, Solano, at the time and place above, 

until completion of the proceedings or as ordered by the Court, and thereafter to return the inmate 

to Pleasant Valley State Prison. 

2. The custodian is ordered to notify the Court of any change in custody of this inmate and 

is ordered to provide the new custodian with a copy of this writ. 

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM

To: The Warden of Pleasant Valley State Prison, 

YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce inmate GERRY D. WILLIAMS, CDCR No. D77087, for a settlement conference at California State Prison, Solano at the time and place above, 

until completion of the proceedings or as ordered by the Court, and thereafter to return the inmate 

to Pleasant Valley State Prison. 

FURTHER, you have been ordered to notify the Court of any change in custody of this 

inmate and to provide the new custodian with a copy of this writ. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2010 __________________________________ 

 The Honorable Nandor Vadas 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Nandor J. Vadas

Case 3:08-cv-03907-SI Document 55 Filed 07/26/10 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2440 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2440

             To suspend temporarily the duty on Baypure DS.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 18, 2005

  Mr. Murphy introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             To suspend temporarily the duty on Baypure DS.

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

SECTION 1. BAYPURE DS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.05.70      Polyaspartic Acid,  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         Sodium Salt, in                                                    31/2009
                         Aqueous Solution
                         (CAS No. 181828-
                         06-8) (provided
                         for in subheading
                         3911.90.90)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
### §299b–4a. Studies on preventive interventions in primary care for older Americans

#### (a) Studies

The Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the United States Preventive Services Task Force, shall conduct a series of studies designed to identify preventive interventions that can be delivered in the primary care setting and that are most valuable to older Americans.

#### (b) Mission statement

The mission statement of the United States Preventive Services Task Force is amended to include the evaluation of services that are of particular relevance to older Americans.

#### (c) Report

Not later than 1 year after December 21, 2000, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall submit to Congress a report on the conclusions of the studies conducted under subsection (a), together with recommendations for such legislation and administrative actions as the Secretary considers appropriate.

(Pub. L. 106–554, §1(a)(6) [title I, §126], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–479.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000, and also as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001, and not as part of the Public Health Service Act which comprises this chapter.
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 Internet Infinity, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report), I, George Morris, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



(1)

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



(2)

Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date:  February 20, 2009



| |  |                                      
| |  | -------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ George Morris                    
| |  | George Morris
Chief Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Internet Infinity, Inc. and will be retained by Internet Infinity, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



Exhibit 32.1

Page 1 of 1 Page
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 2364

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DIANNE M. CARTER , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. ( 3:16

- cv
- 00673

- FDW

- DCK )

Submitted : February 15, 2018 Decided: February 16, 2018

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Dianne M. Carter , Appellant Pro Se. Marion E. M. Erickson , Joan Iris Oppenheimer , Francesca Ugolini, U NITED S TATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE , Washington, D.C., for Appellee

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Dianne M. Carter appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the United States on its action seeking to enjoin Carter from preparing federal income tax
forms. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Acc ordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. United States v. Carter , No. 3:16

- cv
- 00673

- FDW

- DCK (W.D.N.C. Oct. 2, 2017)

. We deny Carter’s motions for stay pending appeal and for other relief , and w e dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED