alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §300ff–17. Definitions

For purposes of this subpart:

#### (1) Eligible area

The term "eligible area" means a metropolitan area meeting the requirements of section 300ff–11 of this title that are applicable to the area.

#### (2) Metropolitan area

The term "metropolitan area" means an area that is referred to in the HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as a metropolitan area, and that has a population of 50,000 or more individuals.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XXVI, §2607, as added Pub. L. 101–381, title I, §101(3), Aug. 18, 1990, 104 Stat. 585; amended Pub. L. 101–557, title IV, §401(b)(1), Nov. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 2771; Pub. L. 102–531, title III, §312(d)(28), Oct. 27, 1992, 106 Stat. 3506; Pub. L. 104–146, §3(a)(3), May 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1347; Pub. L. 109–415, title I, §§101(c), 107(b), title VII, §703, Dec. 19, 2006, 120 Stat. 2768, 2783, 2820; Pub. L. 111–87, §2(a)(1), (3)(A), Oct. 30, 2009, 123 Stat. 2885.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2607 of act July 1, 1944, was successively renumbered by subsequent acts and transferred, see section 238f of this title.

#### Amendments

2009—Pub. L. 111–87 repealed Pub. L. 109–415, §703, and revived the provisions of this section as in effect on Sept. 30, 2009. See 2006 Amendment note and Effective Date of 2009 Amendment; Revival of Section note below.

2006—Pub. L. 109–415, §703, which directed repeal of this section effective Oct. 1, 2009, was itself repealed by Pub. L. 111–87, §2(a)(1), effective Sept. 30, 2009.

Pub. L. 109–415, §107(b), substituted "this subpart" for "this part" in introductory provisions.

Par. (2). Pub. L. 109–415, §101(c), substituted "area that is referred" for "area referred" and inserted ", and that has a population of 50,000 or more individuals" before period at end.

1996—Par. (1). Pub. L. 104–146 substituted "The term 'eligible area' means a metropolitan area meeting the requirements of section 300ff–11 of this title that are applicable to the area." for "The term 'eligible area' means a metropolitan area described in section 300ff–11(a) of this title."

1992—Par. (2). Pub. L. 102–531 substituted "Centers for Disease Control and Prevention" for "Centers for Disease Control".

1990—Par. (1). Pub. L. 101–557 substituted "300ff–11(a)" for "300ff–11(a)(1)".

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

#### Effective Date of 2009 Amendment; Revival of Section

For provisions that repeal by section 2(a)(1) of Pub. L. 111–87 of section 703 of Pub. L. 109–415 be effective Sept. 30, 2009, and that the provisions of this section as in effect on Sept. 30, 2009, be revived, see section 2(a)(2), (3)(A) of Pub. L. 111–87, set out as a note under section 300ff–11 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1996 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–146 effective Oct. 1, 1996, see section 13 of Pub. L. 104–146, set out as a note under section 300ff–11 of this title.
#### § 232.11 Subrogation of USAID.

In the event of payment by USAID to a Noteholder under this Guarantee, USAID shall be subrogated to the extent of such payment to all of the rights of such Noteholder against the Borrower under the related Note.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                            9753
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   117760
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      13181
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                192778
<PP&E>                                          106102
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  836432
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           131917
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           182
<OTHER-SE>                                      419340
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    419522
<SALES>                                         209066
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                209066
<CGS>                                           134583
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   134583
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 59290
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3635
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  11558
<INCOME-TAX>                                      5883
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               5675
<DISCONTINUED>                                     133
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      5808
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.37


</TABLE>
§ 505.13 General exemptions (Subsection (j)). ( a ) General exemptions are available for systems of records which are maintained by the Central Intelligence Agency (Subsection (j)(1)), or maintained by an agency which performs as its principal function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of the criminal laws (Subsection (j)(2)).
( b ) The Act does not permit general one exemption of records compiled primarily for a non-criminal purpose, even though there are some quasi-criminal aspects to the investigation and even though the records are in a system of records to which the general exemption applies.
Case 3:08-cv-01567-JL Document 24 Filed 04/27/10 Page 1 of 3 Case3:08-cv-01567-JL Document23 Filed04/26/10 Page1 of 3
Case 3:08-cv-01567-JL Document 24 Filed 04/27/10 Page 2 of 3 Case3:08-cv-01567-JL Document23 Filed04/26/10 Page2 of 3
Case 3:08-cv-01567-JL Document 24 Filed 04/27/10 Page 3 of 3 Case3:08-cv-01567-JL Document23 Filed04/26/10 Page3 of 3
### §3784. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3784 was editorially reclassified as section 10223 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### § 518.43 Competition.

All procurement transactions shall be conducted in a manner to provide, to the maximum extent practical, open and free competition. The recipient shall be alert to organizational conflicts of interest as well as noncompetitive practices among contractors that may restrict or eliminate competition or otherwise restrain trade. In order to ensure objective contractor performance and eliminate unfair competitive advantage, contractors that develop or draft specifications, requirements, statements of work, invitations for bids and/or requests for proposals shall be excluded from competing for such procurements. Awards shall be made to the bidder or offeror whose bid or offer is responsive to the solicitation and is most advantageous to the recipient, price, quality and other factors considered. Solicitations shall clearly set forth all requirements that the bidder or offeror shall fulfill in order for the bid or offer to be evaluated by the recipient. Any and all bids or offers may be rejected when it is in the recipient's interest to do so.
Case 3:08-cv-04099-CRB Document 8 Filed 07/27/10 Page 1 of 2Case 3:08-cv-04099-CRB Document 8 Filed 07/27/10 Page 2 of 2
[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:****Sixteenth census of the UnitedStates: 1940: population and housing: families: characteristics of rural-farmfamilies; regions and divisions**
 
Parts: 01 | 02
 
SuDoc Number:C 3.940-2:P 81/12
Item Number:0198 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 001104069
 
September 27, 2018
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2500 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2500

 To restore the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission 
  over amusement park rides which are at a fixed site, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 2005

  Mr. Markey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To restore the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission 
  over amusement park rides which are at a fixed site, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``National Amusement Park Ride Safety 
Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. JURISDICTION OVER FIXED SITE AMUSEMENT RIDES.

    Section 3(a)(1) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 
2052(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``, and which is not permanently 
fixed to a site. Such term does not include such a device which is 
permanently fixed to a site.'' and inserting a period.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated to the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission $500,000 for each fiscal year to enable the 
Commission to carry out the Consumer Product Safety Act as amended by 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed June 16, 2021

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No s

. 3D19

- 1938; 3D20

- 1378 Lower Tribunal No. 14

- 5373

________________



### Aaron Haddad , Appellant /Cross

- Appellee ,
vs. 

### Monica Medina , Appellee /Cross

- Appellant

.

Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Marcia B. Caballero , Judge. Aaron Haddad , in proper person

. Monica Medina , in proper person

.
Before HENDON, GORDO and BOKOR , JJ. PER CURIAM. The instant appeal s are taken of the trial court’s September 5, 2019 final judgment of paternity and establishment of parenting p lan and its2 August 24, 2020 partial amendment to the final judgment following rehearing. Pursuant to the amended final judgment, t he trial court ordered the parties to prepare new child support guidelines worksheets based on its revised findings. Both pa rties filed proposed revised child support guidelines worksheets , but the court has yet to approve or file any revised child support guidelines

. “It is reversible error for the court to fail to include a child support guidelines worksheet in a final judgm ent establishing paternity and child support. ” Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. K.A.N. v. A.N.J. , 165 So. 3d 846, 848 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (citations omitted)

. Accordingly, reversal is warranted. See Garcia v. Espinosa , 314 So. 3d 619, 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (holding the trial court’s failure to include a child support guidelines worksheet in the final judgment precluded this Court from conducting a meaningful appellate review of the award and warranted reversal); see also J.A.D. v. K.M.A. , 264 So. 3d 1 080, 1083 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (“Additionally, the trial court did not include in the final judgment a child support guidelines worksheet. This, too,

was error.”)

. Reversed and remanded

.
#### MULLIGAN et al. v. HARLAM.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

March 21, 1905.)

1. Monet Received—Fbattd—Defenses.

Plaintiffs executed a check to defendant at the instance of K., who secured the check by delivering to plaintiffs a note made by him for the amount of the check, bearing the forged indorsement of defendant. At K.’s solicitation, defendant indorsed the check, passed it through his bank, and subsequently paid the proceeds to K. *Held,*that defendant received plaintiff’s money without consideration, and in consequence of K.’s fraud, and that plaintiff was therefore entitled to its immediate return, though defendant could not be restored to his original position.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 39, Cent. Dig. Payment, § 281.]

2. Same—Evidence.

Evidence as to K.’s conversation with defendant at the time of the presentation of the check, and as to defendant’s subsequent delivery of the money to him, was inadmissible.

8. Same—Good "Faith.

A demand for the return of the money having been made before suit brought, evidence of defendant’s good faith was inadmissible.

Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.

Action by Thomas F. Mulligan and another against Edward M. Harlam. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before SCOTT, O’GORMAN, and BLANCHARD, JJ.

W. C. Findlay, for appellant.

B. F. Edsall, for respondents.

O’GORMAN, J.

Action to recover $1,200, the amount of a check made by plaintiffs to the defendant at the instance of one Kelly, who secured the check on the delivery to the plaintiffs of a note made by Kelly for that amount, and bearing the forged indorsement of the defendant. At the solicitation of Kelly, the defendant indorsed the check, passed it through his bank, and it was paid by the plaintiffs’ bank in due course. There was judgment for the plaintiffs, and the sole question presented is whether the trial justice erred in excluding evidence tendered by the defendant as to Kelly’s conversation with him at the time of the presentation of the check, and as to the defendant’s subsequent delivery of the $1,200 to Kelly. The case, under *766. the proof, is simply a case of money had and received. The defendant received plaintiffs’ money without consideration, and in consequence of the fraud of a third person. The plaintiffs had a right to its immediate return. It is no defense that the defendant cannot be restored to his original position. Kingston Bank v. Eltinge, 40 N. Y. 399, 100 Am. Dec. 516. Evidence of defendant’s good faith would be admissible only if suit were brought without previous demand. Sharkey v. Mansfield, 90 N. Y. 227, 43 Am. Rep. 161. As a demand was made, that question did not arise, and defendant’s exception to the exclusion of this evidence is unavailing.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. ' All concur.
#### § 231.07 Fiscal Agent obligations.

Failure of the Fiscal Agent to perform any of its obligations pursuant to the Fiscal Agency Agreement shall not impair any Noteholder's rights under this Guarantee, but may be the subject of action for damages against the Fiscal Agent by USAID as a result of such failure or neglect. A Noteholder may appoint the Fiscal Agent to make demand for payment on its behalf under this Guarantee.
No. D-844.

#### In re Disbarment of Ray.

Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 493 U. S. 988.]
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
#### § 1508.125 Does an exclusion under the nonprocurement system affect a person's eligibility for Federal procurement contracts?

If any Federal agency excludes a person under its nonprocurement common rule on or after August 25, 1995, the excluded person is also ineligible to participate in Federal procurement transactions under the FAR. Therefore, an exclusion under this part has reciprocal effect in Federal procurement transactions.
#### § 238.13 Change in agreements.

No Noteholder will consent to any change or waiver of any provision of any document contemplated by the Guarantee without the prior written consent of USAID.
### §3797ff–5. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3797ff–5 was editorially reclassified as section 10706 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
§ 213.32 Standards for termination of collection action. The CFO may terminate collection action on a debt when he or she determines that: ( a ) The Government cannot collect or enforce collection of any significant sum from the debtor, having due regard for available judicial remedies, the debtor's ability to pay, and the exemptions available to the debtor under State and Federal law;
( b ) The debtor cannot be located, there is no security remaining to be liquidated, and the prospects of collecting by offset are too remote to justify retention of the claim;
( c ) The cost of further collection action is likely to exceed the amount recoverable;
( d ) The claim is determined to be legally without merit or enforcement of the debt is barred by any applicable statute of limitations;
( e ) The evidence necessary to prove the claim cannot be produced or the necessary witnesses are unavailable and efforts to induce voluntary payment have failed; or
( f ) The debt against the debtor has been discharged in bankruptcy.
[67 FR 47258, July 18, 2002, as amended at 86 FR 31145, June 11, 2021]
§ 1509.650 Grant. *Grant* means an award of financial assistance that, consistent with 31 U.S.C. 6304, is used to enter into a relationship— ( a ) The principal purpose of which is to transfer a thing of value to the recipient to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United States, rather than to acquire property or services for the Federal Government's direct benefit or use; and
( b ) In which substantial involvement is not expected between the Federal agency and the recipient when carrying out the activity contemplated by the award.
### §3789j. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3789j was editorially reclassified as section 10233 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
§ 236.5 Non-impairment of the Guarantee. After issuance of the Guarantee, the Guarantee will be an unconditional, full faith and credit obligation of the United States of America and will not be affected or impaired by any subsequent condition or event. This non-impairment of the guarantee provision shall not, however, be operative with respect to any loss arising out of fraud or misrepresentation for which the claiming Noteholder is responsible or of which it had knowledge at the time it became a Noteholder. In particular and without limitation, the Guarantee shall not be affected or impaired by: ( a ) Any defect in the authorization, execution, delivery or enforceability of any agreement or other document executed by a Noteholder, USAID, the Fiscal Agent or the Borrower in connection with the transactions contemplated by this Guarantee or
( b ) The suspension or termination of the program pursuant to which USAID is authorized to guarantee the Eligible Notes.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001020424
<NAME>                        WIRELESS CABLE & COMMUNICATIONS INC
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         8,247,003
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  14,411
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               8,466,416
<PP&E>                                         757,910
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (351,404)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 19,039,572
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,481,905
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    32,789
<COMMON>                                       60,231
<OTHER-SE>                                     15,368,220
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   19,039,572
<SALES>                                        38,648
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               38,648
<CGS>                                          24,106
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  24,106
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,016,989
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             116,861
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,075,804)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,075,804)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,075,804)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.40)
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Herman J. Bates, as County Clerk.

Application granted to destroy certain records on file in Steuben County Clerk’s office.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Omtool, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert L. Voelk, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to myknowledge, that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ Robert L. Voelk     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Robert L. Voelk         |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |
| November 13, 2008  |   |

 

----