alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 232.570 Endorsement of credit instrument. The Commissioner shall indicate his insurance of the loan by endorsing the credit instrument and identifying the section of the Act and regulations under which the loan is insured and the date of insurance, subject to the presentation and approval by him of the following: ( a ) Certification of full disbursement of loan proceeds as provided for in § 232.530.
( b ) Certification of costs as required by § 232.610.
( c ) Certification that fire safety equipment was installed as required by § 232.500(c).
[39 FR 28966, Aug. 12, 1974, as amended at 80 FR 48028, Aug. 11, 2015]
### §7276d. Property protection program for power marketing administrations

The Administrators of the Western Area Power Administration, the Southwestern Power Administration, and the Southeastern Power Administration may each carry out programs to reduce vandalism, theft, and destruction of property that is under their jurisdiction.

(Pub. L. 107–78, §1, Nov. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 808.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the Department of Energy Organization Act which comprises this chapter.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 9, 2015

a1202 

# Order

Clerk December 9, 2015

151311

TIMOTHY A. CARL,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 151311

COA: 319017

Muskegon CC: 12

- 048776

- CZ

MUSKEGON COUNTY, MARK BURNS,

TODD GILCHRIST, THERESA JONES

- BURTON,

BRIAN BONSTELL, LEONARD BETHKE and

BRENDAN BOWEN, Personal Representatives of

the Estate of CHRISTY BOWEN, DARRYL

HAIRSTON, JASON CERKA, RICHARD TOPP,

SCOTT SMITH, DEAN ROSELE R as Muskegon

County Sheriff and Individually, and STEVEN J.

WEINERT,

Defendants,

and

KATHERINE A JAWOR, D.O.,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 26, 2015

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
### §6619. National coordination of research infrastructure

#### (a) Identification and prioritization of deficiencies in Federal research facilities

Each year the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall, through the National Science and Technology Council, identify and prioritize the deficiencies in research facilities and major instrumentation located at Federal laboratories and national user facilities at academic institutions that are widely accessible for use by researchers in the United States. In prioritizing such deficiencies, the Director shall consider research needs in areas relevant to the specific mission requirements of Federal agencies.

#### (b) Planning for acquisition, refurbishment, and maintenance of research facilities and major instrumentation

The Director shall, through the National Science and Technology Council, coordinate the planning by Federal agencies for the acquisition, refurbishment, and maintenance of research facilities and major instrumentation to address the deficiencies identified under subsection (a).

#### (c) Report

The Director shall submit to Congress each year, together with documents submitted to Congress in support of the budget of the President for the fiscal year beginning in such year (as submitted pursuant to section 1105 of title 31), a report, current as of the fiscal year ending in the year before such report is submitted, setting forth the following:

(1) A description of the deficiencies in research infrastructure identified in accordance with subsection (a).

(2) A list of projects and budget proposals of Federal research facilities, set forth by agency, for major instrumentation acquisitions that are included in the budget proposal of the President.

(3) An explanation of how the projects and instrumentation acquisitions described in paragraph (2) relate to the deficiencies and priorities identified pursuant to subsection (a).

(Pub. L. 110–69, title I, §1007, Aug. 9, 2007, 121 Stat. 580.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the America COMPETES Act, also known as the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act, and not as part of the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 which comprises this chapter.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald Colt, Appellant.

[832 NYS2d 441]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Adler, J.), rendered June 16, 2005, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not entitled to have the court,mandate his entry into a comprehensive alcohol and substance abuse treatment program while incarcerated since he was not convicted of a drug-related offense *(see*Penal Law § 60.04 [6]). There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that the court failed to inform him of a direct consequence of his plea (see *People v Catu,*4 NY3d 242 [2005]). Miller, J.P., Santucci, Florio and Lifson, JJ., concur.
### §7291. Transfer and allocations of appropriations and personnel

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the personnel employed in connection with, and the assets, liabilities, contracts, property, records, and unexpended balance of appropriations authorizations, allocations, and other funds employed, held, used, arising from, available to or to be made available in connection with the functions transferred by this chapter, subject to section 1531 of title 31, are hereby transferred to the Secretary for appropriate allocation. Unexpended funds transferred pursuant to this subsection shall only be used for the purposes for which the funds were originally authorized and appropriated.

(b) Positions expressly specified by statute or reorganization plan to carry out function 1 transferred by this chapter, personnel occupying those positions on October 1, 1977, and personnel authorized to receive compensation in such positions at the rate prescribed for offices and positions at level I, II, III, IV, or V of the executive schedule (5 U.S.C. 5312–5316) on October 1, 1977, shall be subject to the provisions of section 7293 of this title.

(Pub. L. 95–91, title VII, §701, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 605.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 95–91, Aug. 4, 1977, 91 Stat. 565, known as the Department of Energy Organization Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 7101 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

In subsec. (a), "section 1531 of title 31" substituted for "section 202 of the Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950 [31 U.S.C. 581c]" 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.

1 So in original. Probably should be "functions".
### §§8121 to 8124. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–35, title III, §313(a), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 398

Section 8121, Pub. L. 95–557, title VII, §702, Oct. 31, 1978, 92 Stat. 2119, set forth congressional findings and statement of purposes for neighborhood self-help development programs.

Section 8122, Pub. L. 95–557, title VII, §703, Oct. 31, 1978, 92 Stat. 2120, defined terms applicable to subchapter.

Section 8123, Pub. L. 95–557, title VII, §704, Oct. 31, 1978, 92 Stat. 2120; Pub. L. 96–153, title I, §107(b), Dec. 21, 1979, 93 Stat. 1104, set forth provisions respecting grants and other forms of assistance.

Section 8124, Pub. L. 95–557, title VII, §705, Oct. 31, 1978, 92 Stat. 2121; Pub. L. 96–153, title I, §107(a), Dec. 21, 1979, 93 Stat. 1104; Pub. L. 96–399, title I, §115, Oct. 8, 1980, 94 Stat. 1623, related to authorization of appropriations for grants.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Sections 8121 to 8124 repealed effective Oct. 1, 1981, see section 371 of Pub. L. 97–35, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3701 of Title 12, Banks and Banking.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  a)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Famous Daves of America, Inc. for the
quarter ended April 4, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 b)
    
    Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Famous Daves of America, Inc.
 Dated:  May 14, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Christopher ODonnellChristopher ODonnellPresident and Chief Executive Officer and
Director (Principal Executive Officer)Dated:  May 14, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Diana Garvis PurcelDiana Garvis PurcelChief Financial Officer and Secretary
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2967 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2967

To designate the Federal building located at 333 Mt. Elliott Street in 
       Detroit, Michigan, as the ``Rosa Parks Federal Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 17, 2005

  Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan (for herself, Mr. Watt, Mr. Conyers, Mr. 
 Abercrombie, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of 
 Texas, Mr. Honda, Mr. Upton, Mr. McDermott, Ms. Watson, Mr. Camp, Mr. 
Stupak, Mr. Levin, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Holt, Mr. 
 Rogers of Michigan, Mr. Schwarz of Michigan, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, 
 Mr. Ehlers, and Mr. Knollenberg) introduced the following bill; which 
   was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To designate the Federal building located at 333 Mt. Elliott Street in 
       Detroit, Michigan, as the ``Rosa Parks Federal Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building located at 333 Mt. Elliott Street in Detroit, 
Michigan, shall be known and designated as the ``Rosa Parks Federal 
Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Rosa Parks Federal 
Building''.
                                 <all>
```
From: Rob Bamford < rbamford@ndep.nv.gov >

To: Chuck French/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Mike Elges < melges@ndep.nv.gov >

Date: 10/19/2010 05 :08 PM

Subject: Questions

Hello Chuck, here’s the information:

1. As I explained on phone, we have questions about the Goldstrike autoclave data for Dry Grinding (systems 15A and 16A) for tests done on 8/3/2007 and 8/4/2007. The runs seem quite high compared to other tests, the 3 runs are more than an order of magnitude apart from one another, there seems to be no blank value reported, the PM catch seems under reported, etc... Anyway, did y'all do an evaluation of that data and test report? If so, could you send the evaluation report for those tests to me ASAP? Nevertheless, could you please let me know ASAP if you (or your colleagues at NDEP) have any information, review, or opinions on these data, the validity, etc...?

The dry grind sys tems are associated with the roasters (not autoclaves).

We had a database maintenance error and those test should have been invalidated. I attached a detailed discussion on the subsequent investigation. During the test the company also ran OHM and 30b si multaneously. The discussion contains a very interesting discussion comparing M29, OHM and 30b. The variance measured between the 3 methods is huge, and the exemplifies NDEP’s concerns with alternative method, other than M29.

2. Could you please send u s the run by run lb/hr values for a test conducted on Carbon Kiln #1 at Cortez on 1/1/2010. We have only the average of the 3 runs in our database right now and we need individual run values.

I have a test for kiln#1 on January 28, 2010, (not January 1st ) is this the test you are referring to? (Embedded image moved to file: pic30259.gif)

3. Could you please let me know if the Title V permits (or any other permits for that matter) contain requirements or obligations for cyanide management practices. If so, could you let me know what those say?

The Title 5 Permits do not contain requirements or obligations for cyanide management practices. I would assume that the company provides calculationsduring the application process to demonstrate that they do n ot emit > 10tpy. I could verify this further if you like.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions,

- Rob

|

------------------- +

----------------------------- | | (Embedded image |Rob Bamford | | moved to file: |Super visor, Nevada Mercury | | pic00821.jpg) |Control Program | | Description: |Nevada Division of | |logo_new01_print_s |Environmental Protection | | |Bureau of Air Quality | | |P lanning | | | | | |Phone: 775

- 687

- 9330 | | |Cell: 775

- 315

- 3655 | | |Fax: 775

- 687

- 6396 | | |E

- mail: rbamford@ndep.nv.gov | |

------------------- +

----------------------------- |
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-20104

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FRANCISCO MARTINEZ OLGUIN, also known as Francisco Martinez, also

known as Francisco Olguin Martinez, also known as Francisco Olquin Martinez,

also known as Jose Martinez, 

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CR-520-1

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and OWEN and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Francisco Martinez Olguin (Martinez) appeals the 45-month sentence

imposed following his conviction for illegal reentry. He contends that the district

court erred in enhancing his sentence for a crime of violence under United States

Sentencing Guidelines § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) based on his Texas conviction for

indecency with a child under Texas Penal Code § 21.11(a)(1) and (d) (2003). His

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 11, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 12-20104 Document: 00512304129 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/11/2013
No. 12-20104

challenge is foreclosed by our decisions in United States v. Cabecera Rodriguez,

711 F.3d 541, 562 & n.28 (5th Cir. 2013) (en banc), petition for cert. filed, (June

6, 2013)(No. 12-10695) and United States v. Quiroga-Hernandez, 698 F.3d 227,

228 (5th Cir. 2012).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-20104 Document: 00512304129 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/11/2013
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                   EXHIBIT 11

                     METRIS COMPANIES INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
In thousands, except per-share amounts                       Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                                2003           2002
<S>                                                          <C>             <C>
BASIC:

Net income (loss)                                            $   (92,519)    $  44,280
                                                             ===========     =========

Weighted-average common shares outstanding                        57,257        62,188
Assumed conversion of convertible preferred stock (1)                  -        33,844
                                                             -----------     ---------
Basic common shares                                               57,257        96,032
                                                             ===========     =========

Net income (loss) per share                                  $     (1.62)    $    0.46

DILUTED:

Net income (loss)                                            $   (92,519)    $  44,280
                                                             ===========     =========
Weighted-average number of common shares outstanding              57,257        62,188
Assumed exercise of outstanding stock options (1)                      -           941
Assumed conversion of convertible preferred stock (1)                  -        33,844
                                                             -----------     ---------
Diluted common shares                                             57,257        96,973
                                                             ===========     =========

Net income (loss) per share                                  $     (1.62)    $    0.46
</TABLE>

(1)  The earnings per share calculation for the three month period ended March
     31, 2003 excludes the assumed conversion of 30.8 million shares of
     convertible preferred stock and the outstanding stock options, as they are
     anti-dilutive. For the three month period ended March 31, 2002, earnings
     per share is calculated by adding back the Series C convertible preferred
     dividends of $9.7 million. In determining the number of dilutive shares
     outstanding, the Series C convertible preferred stock is assumed to have
     been converted into 33.8 million shares at the beginning of the three month
     period ended March 31, 2002.
Dear Mr. Bryson:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing fro m your petition (Docket No. FAA−2015

− 3505 )

. This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Your petition references the material(s) listed below , however the material(s) was /were not submitted for the record. Please provide a copy of the following referenced
mate rials:

o Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM)

.

Please submit the additional information (non

- proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov

. Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary information ), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e

- mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov

. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the info rmation described above by 11/26/15 . I f we do not receive the information

, we will close the dock et without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267

- 4549

. Sincerely, /S/ Michael J. Cameron Program Analyst
#### Alsco of Hamburg, Inc., Respondent, v. Mary Kelly et al., Appellants.

Appeal dismissed unless printed records and briefs are filed and served on or before June 1, 1960. Respondent directed to file ¡brief by August 15,1960.
### §2928g–1. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 92–424, §3(b)(2), Sept. 19, 1972, 86 Stat. 688, required the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to establish policies and procedures to assure that handicapped children received certain enrollment opportunities in Headstart programs and that services were provided to meet their special needs and to report annually to Congress on the status of handicapped children in the Headstart programs. See section 9835(d) of this title.
#### Bernard Reis, Respondent, v Pfizer, Inc., Appellant.

Supreme Court, New York County, entered October 25, 1976, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment, is unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and the motion granted and the complaint dismissed. Plaintiffs three-month-old son was given defendant’s oral polio vaccine in October, 1966 and January, 1967. In February, 1967 plaintiff developed poliomyelitis and was hospitalized until December, 1967, and the illness culminated in permanent crippling. Plaintiff alleges that the Federal Communicable Disease Center found his illness to be vaccine-induced contact poliomyelitis, and though he is not named, the case described in their annual survey for 1967 may well be his case. At issue is whether Special Term properly used the date plaintiff claims he could have discovered that his malady might have been caused by defendant’s oral polio vaccine instead of the date when the illness manifested itself, in calculating the time when the Statute of Limitations began to run. This is not a medical malpractice claim to which the tolling doctrine of *Flanagan v Mt. Eden Gen. Hosp. (24*NY2d 427) and its progeny—the foreign object doctrine —could apply. At best, plaintiff had a claim for strict products liability which accrued at the time of injury in 1967 (see *Martin v Julius Dierck Equip. Co.,*43 NY2d 583) or breach of warranty which accrued at the time of sale of the "defective” vaccine (Uniform Commercial Code, § 2-725, subd [2]). In either event, the period of limitations has long since expired—three years for strict products liability under CPLR 214 (subd 5) (see *Victorson v Bock Laundry Mach. Co.,*37 NY2d 395, 399-400) or four years for breach of warranty under subdivision (1) of section 2-725 of the Uniform Commercial Code (see *Victorson, supra,*p 403). Concur—Birns, J. P., Evans, Lane and Markewich, JJ.