alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1003.509 Force account construction. ( a ) The use of tribal work forces for construction or renovation activities performed as part of the activities funded under this part shall be approved by the Area ONAP before the start of project implementation. In reviewing requests for an approval of force account construction or renovation, the area ONAP may require that the grantee provide the following: ( 1 ) Documentation to indicate that it has carried out or can carry out successfully a project of the size and scope of the proposal;
( 2 ) Documentation to indicate that it has obtained or can obtain adequate supervision for the workers to be used;
( 3 ) Information showing that the workers to be used are, or will be, listed on the tribal payroll and are employed directly by a unit, department or other governmental instrumentality of the tribe or village.
( b ) Any and all excess funds derived from the force account construction or renovation activities shall accrue to the grantee and shall be reprogrammed for other activities eligible under this part in accordance with § 1003.305 or returned to HUD promptly.
( c ) Insurance coverage for force account workers and activities shall, where applicable, include worker's compensation, public liability, property damage, builder's risk, and vehicular liability.
( d ) The grantee shall specify and apply reasonable labor performance, construction, or renovation standards to work performed under the force account.
( e ) The contracting and procurement standards set forth in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D, apply to material, equipment, and supply procurement from outside vendors under this section.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2577-0191) [62 FR 12349, Mar. 12, 1998, as amended at 80 FR 75945, Dec. 7, 2015]
§ 19.7-2 Agreement with spouse. ( a ) A spousal agreement between a participant and a spouse may waive or fix the level of a regular survivor annuity under § 19.11-3. If an agreement is filed, it will assure the spouse that the agreed-upon level of survivor annuity will be paid, irrespective of a future divorce provided the survivor meets the definition of “former spouse” in § 19.2(k). If an agreement is not filed, the participant's annuity will be reduced under § 19.10-2 to provide the maximum regular survivor annuity for the spouse, but in the event of a future divorce if the spouse meets the definition of “former spouse,” that person will be entitled only to a pro rata share of the survivor annuity. An agreement under this paragraph may be filed with PER/ER/RET at any time prior to retirement (commencement of the principal's annuity).
( b ) A spousal agreement between an annuitant and a spouse filed with PER/ER/RET before commencement of a supplemental annuity for recall service may waive a supplemental survivor annuity that would otherwise be provided for a spouse under § 19.10-6.
( c ) A spousal agreement between a participant or former participant and a spouse may be filed with PER/ER/RET at any time in accordance with § 19.10-5 and provide for an additional survivor annuity for the spouse.
( d ) A spousal agreement filed under paragraph (a), (b), or (c) remains valid and binding in the event of divorce if the spouse qualifies as a former spouse.
(September 19, 1960)

Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, ICleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.

#### Anthony Molinaro, an Infant, et al., Respondents, v. City of New York, Defendant-Appellant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Motion by respondents Molinaro to dismiss appeal denied on condition that appellant argues or submits the appeal at the November 1960 Term, beginning October 31, 1960, for which term the appeal is ordered to be placed on the calendar. The record and appellant’s brief must be served and filed on or before October 17, 1960.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                         1524000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   811000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    3871000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               6926000
<PP&E>                                        32670000
<DEPRECIATION>                                12302000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                28616000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3237000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          4385
<OTHER-SE>                                    14811000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  28616000
<SALES>                                        1561700
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1575200
<CGS>                                          9817000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  9817000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3577000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              474000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 955000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    371000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             584000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    584000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
        


</TABLE>
Structure:
### §§6021, 6022. Repealed. Pub. L. 106–402, title IV, §401(a), Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1737

Section 6021, Pub. L. 88–164, title I, §121, as added Pub. L. 98–527, §2, Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2670; amended Pub. L. 100–146, title II, §201(a), Oct. 29, 1987, 101 Stat. 845; Pub. L. 101–496, §10, Oct. 31, 1990, 104 Stat. 1195; Pub. L. 103–230, title II, §202, Apr. 6, 1994, 108 Stat. 297, set forth the purpose of this subchapter.

A prior section 121 of Pub. L. 88–164, title I, as added Pub. L. 94–103, title I, §105, Oct. 4, 1975, 89 Stat. 486; amended Pub. L. 95–602, title V, §509, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 3008, related generally to demonstration and training grants and was classified to section 6031 of this title, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 98–527.

Section 6022, Pub. L. 88–164, title I, §122, as added Pub. L. 98–527, §2, Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2670; amended Pub. L. 99–91, §6(b), Aug. 15, 1985, 99 Stat. 391; Pub. L. 100–146, title II, §202, Oct. 29, 1987, 101 Stat. 845; Pub. L. 101–496, §11, Oct. 31, 1990, 104 Stat. 1195; Pub. L. 102–119, §26(b), Oct. 7, 1991, 105 Stat. 607; Pub. L. 103–230, title II, §203, Apr. 6, 1994, 108 Stat. 297; Pub. L. 105–12, §9(l)(1), Apr. 30, 1997, 111 Stat. 28, related to submission and approval of State plans.

A prior section 122 of Pub. L. 88–164, title I, as added Pub. L. 94–103, title I, §105, Oct. 4, 1975, 89 Stat. 487; amended Pub. L. 95–602, title V, §509, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 3009, set forth administrative provisions relating to demonstration and training grants for university affiliated facilities and was classified to section 6032 of this title, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 98–527.
#### § 203.264 Payment of periodic MIP.

The mortgagee shall pay each MIP in twelve equal monthly installments. Each monthly installment shall be due and payable to the Commissioner no later than the tenth day of each month, beginning in the month in which the mortgagor is required to make the first monthly mortgage payment. This will be effective for amortization beginning on or after September 1, 1996.

[61 FR 42787, Aug. 19, 1996]
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Evaline Stanton, Respondent, v Johnstown Knitting Mill Co. et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed March 26, 1976. Decedent was employed as a cloth finisher for approximately eight years prior to his disability. The record reveals that in or around January, 1973 the employer changed the types of material that decedent was working with and that different chemical substances were involved. On March 30, 1973, the decedent ceased working and he died on March 9, 1974. Prior to his death decedent had filed a disability claim and a claim for death benefits was filed after his death. The board found that decedent’s disability and subsequent death were a result of exposure to a toxic agent at work and that his disability and death arose out of and in the course of his employment. On this appeal appellants contend that there is no competent proof of decedent’s exposure to toxic materials at work. The decedent’s attending, physician testified at the hearing that decedent’s condition could not have developed over a long period of time; that his condition was a result of a toxic inhalant; that decedent had related his symptoms to the onset of the changing process; and that decedent’s lung was poisoned and destroyed. He further testified that he had no other alternative but relate decedent’s condition to his job exposure. The carrier filed a report authored by its physician which stated "it is reasonable to conclude that his illness, disability and subsequently death were directly associated with his occupational exposure.” In our opinion there is substantial evidence to support the board’s determination and, absent other error, it should not be disturbed *(Matter of Sienkiewicz v Bendix Corp. Elec. Components Div.,*51 AD2d 1087; *Matter of Saponaro v Walgro Prods.,*43 AD2d 602). We find no other *errors.*Appellants’ contention that the carrier was improperly deprived of its right to produce proof lacks merit. Upon considering the entire record, it is this court’s view that the carrier was given sufficient opportunity to present its evidence. We have considered appellants’ remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. Decision affirmed, with-costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board against the employer and its insurance carrier. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Staley, Jr., and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-60472

Summary Calendar

NATALIA ANDREA GARRO CANO,

Petitioner

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A043 746 547

Before WIENER, HAYNES, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioner Natalia Andrea Garro Cano is a native and citizen of Colombia 

who was adjudicated inadmissible in 2008 because she committed a crime 

involving moral turpitude (CIMT). In 2017, she filed an untimely motion to 

reopen her removal proceedings, claiming that her attorney did not investigate 

or pursue relief from removal. The BIA concluded that Garro Cano had not 

established the due diligence necessary for equitable tolling and denied the 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 13, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-60472 Document: 00515074124 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/13/2019
No. 18-60472

2

motion. Garro Cano now petitions for review of the BIA’s decision. She also 

raises her substantive claims for relief from removal.

We review an immigration court’s denial of a motion to reopen removal 

proceedings for abuse of discretion. Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 337, 340 

(5th Cir. 2016). The BIA “abuses its discretion when it issues a decision that 

is capricious, irrational, utterly without foundation in the evidence, based on 

legally erroneous interpretations of statutes or regulations, or based on 

unexplained departures from regulations or established policies.” Id. (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). Equitable tolling is warranted only if 

the litigant establishes “(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and 

(2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented 

timely filing.” Id. at 344 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Garro Cano asserts that her counsel’s failure to investigate and present 

a defense to the CIMT charge and inadmissibility determination constituted 

an extraordinary circumstance meriting equitable tolling of the limitations 

period. However, she makes no attempt, other than a claim of ignorance of the 

error, to explain why she waited seven years to file her motion to reopen or 

what other efforts she took during that time to preserve her rights. Therefore, 

Garro Cano has not met her burden to demonstrate that equitable tolling 

applies, and the BIA’s conclusion that her motion to reopen was untimely was 

not an abuse of discretion. See id. at 340, 344.

The petition for review is DENIED.

 Case: 18-60472 Document: 00515074124 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/13/2019
#### § 223.8 Initial decision.

The examiner shall issue an initial decision based exclusively on matters of record in the proceedings and shall set forth all findings of fact and conclusions of law relevant to the matters at issue.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 77834]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28364]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Office of Research and Development; Government Owned Invention 
Available for Licensing

AGENCY: Office of Research and Development, VA.

ACTION: Notice of Government-owned invention available for licensing.

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

SUMMARY: The invention listed below is owned by the U.S. Government as 
represented by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and is available for 
licensing in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 and 37 CFR part 404 and/or 
Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADA) Collaboration 
under 15 U.S.C. 3710a to achieve expeditious commercialization of 
results of federally funded research and development. Foreign patents 
are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for U.S. 
companies and may also be available for licensing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technical and licensing information on 
the invention may be obtained by writing to: Robert W. Potts, 
Department of Veterans Affairs, Director Technology Transfer Program, 
Office of Research and Development, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, 
DC 20420; fax: (202) 254-0260; e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b4d6dbd69ac4dbc0c0c7f4dcc59ad9d1d09ac2d59ad3dbc2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="44262b266a342b303037042c356a2921206a32256a232b32">[email protected]</span></a>. Any 
request for information should include the number and title for the 
relevant invention as indicated below. Issued patents may be obtained 
from the Commissioner of Patents, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 
Washington, DC 20231.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The invention available for licensing is:
    International Patent Application No. PCT/US03/07934 ``Methods and 
Compositions Using Cellular Asialodeterminants and Glycoconjugates for 
Targeting Cells to Tissues and Organs.''

    Dated: December 17, 2004.
Anthony J. Principi,
Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs.
[FR Doc. 04-28364 Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
§ 103.325 Termination of conciliation efforts. ( a ) HUD may terminate its efforts to conciliate the complaint if the respondent fails or refuses to confer with HUD; the aggrieved person or the respondent fail to make a good faith effort to resolve any dispute; or HUD finds, for any reason, that voluntary agreement is not likely to result.
( b ) Where the aggrieved person has commenced a civil action under an Act of Congress or a State law seeking relief with respect to the alleged discriminatory housing practice, and the trial in the action has commenced, HUD will terminate conciliation unless the court specifically requests assistance from the Assistant Secretary.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Timothy Tell, Appellant.

[715 NYS2d 676]

—Resentence unani*910mously affirmed *(see, People v Lococo,*92 NY2d 825, 827). (Appeal from Resentence of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.— Resentence.) "Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
§ 201.60 General. ( a ) *Applicability.* The provisions in this subpart apply to the collection of debts owed to the United States arising out of the Title I program. These debts include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) Amounts owed on loans assigned to the United States by insured lenders as the result of defaults by borrowers;
( 2 ) Unpaid insurance charges owed by lenders; and
( 3 ) Unpaid obligations of lenders arising from repurchase demands.
( b ) *Departmental debt collection regulations.* Except as modified by this subpart, collection of debts arising out of the Title I program is subject to the Department's debt collection regulations in subpart C of 24 CFR part 17.
For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in

Acrobat 9 or Adobe Reader 9, or later.

Get Adobe Reader Now!
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31.2 CFO CERTIFICATION

I, R. Greg Smith, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of ERF Wireless, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: November 22, 2004

 By:     / S / R. GREG SMITH
         --------------------
         R. Greg Smith
         Chief Financial Officer
         (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-19-00212-CR

IN RE DEDRICK MATTHEWS

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Dedrick Matthews has filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this Court to order the 

114th Judicial District Court of Smith County to grant relief as requested in Matthews’ “Pro Se 

Motion To Correct Illegal Sentence.” 

Section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code provides, “Each court of appeals for a court 

of appeals district may issue all writs of mandamus, agreeable to the principles of law regulating 

those writs, against: (1) a judge of a district, statutory county, statutory probate county, or county 

court in the court of appeals district.” TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(b)(1) (Supp.). The 114th 

Judicial District Court of Smith County is not located within our district. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. 

§ 22.201(g) (Supp.). It is located within the district of the Tyler Court of Appeals. TEX. GOV’T 

CODE ANN. § 22.201(m) (Supp.). Although Matthews’ underlying criminal appeal was transferred 

to this Court pursuant to the Texas Supreme Court’s docket equalization order, such transfer does 

not confer jurisdiction on this Court in a separate original proceeding. See In re Davis, 87 S.W.3d 

794, 795 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, orig. proceeding).

We, therefore, dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction.

Ralph K. Burgess

Justice

Date Submitted: October 24, 2019

Date Decided: October 25, 2019

Do Not Publish
§ 92.64 Filing depositions. ( a ) *Preparation and transmission of envelope.* The notice or commission, the interrogatories, the record of the witnesses' answers, the exhibits, and all other documents and papers pertaining to the depositions should be fastened together (see § 92.63 regarding the arrangement of papers) and should be enclosed in an envelope sealed with the wax engraving seal of the post. The envelope should be endorsed with the title of the action and should be marked and addressed. The sealed envelope should then be transmitted to the court in which the action is pending.
( b ) *Furnishing copies.* The original completed depositions should not be sent to any of the parties to the action or to their counsel. However, the notarizing officer may furnish a copy of a deposition to the deponent or to any party to the action upon the payment of the copying fee and if certification is desired under official seal that the copy is a true copy, the certification fee prescribed in the Tariff of Fees, Foreign Service of the United States of America (§ 22.1 of this chapter).
[22 FR 10858, Dec. 27, 1957, as amended at 60 FR 51723, Oct. 3, 1995]
#### John H. Prentiss, Respondent, v. Norman Heating Co., Inc., Appellant.

Motion by respondent to dismiss appeal denied, on condition that appellant argue or submit the appeal at the January 1961 Term. The appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. The record and appellant’s brief must be served and filed on or before December 14, 1960. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.