alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §9915. Corrective action; termination and reduction of funding

#### (a) Determination

If the State determines, on the basis of a final decision in a review pursuant to section 9914 of this title, that an eligible entity fails to comply with the terms of an agreement, or the State plan, to provide services under this chapter or to meet appropriate standards, goals, and other requirements established by the State (including performance objectives), the State shall—

(1) inform the entity of the deficiency to be corrected;

(2) require the entity to correct the deficiency;

(3)(A) offer training and technical assistance, if appropriate, to help correct the deficiency, and prepare and submit to the Secretary a report describing the training and technical assistance offered; or

(B) if the State determines that such training and technical assistance are not appropriate, prepare and submit to the Secretary a report stating the reasons for the determination;

(4)(A) at the discretion of the State (taking into account the seriousness of the deficiency and the time reasonably required to correct the deficiency), allow the entity to develop and implement, within 60 days after being informed of the deficiency, a quality improvement plan to correct such deficiency within a reasonable period of time, as determined by the State; and

(B) not later than 30 days after receiving from an eligible entity a proposed quality improvement plan pursuant to subparagraph (A), either approve such proposed plan or specify the reasons why the proposed plan cannot be approved; and

(5) after providing adequate notice and an opportunity for a hearing, initiate proceedings to terminate the designation of or reduce the funding under this chapter of the eligible entity unless the entity corrects the deficiency.

#### (b) Review

A determination to terminate the designation or reduce the funding of an eligible entity is reviewable by the Secretary. The Secretary shall, upon request, review such a determination. The review shall be completed not later than 90 days after the Secretary receives from the State all necessary documentation relating to the determination to terminate the designation or reduce the funding. If the review is not completed within 90 days, the determination of the State shall become final at the end of the 90th day.

#### (c) Direct assistance

Whenever a State violates the assurances contained in section 9908(b)(8) of this title and terminates or reduces the funding of an eligible entity prior to the completion of the State hearing described in that section and the Secretary's review as required in subsection (b), the Secretary is authorized to provide financial assistance under this chapter to the eligible entity affected until the violation is corrected. In such a case, the grant or allotment for the State under section 9905 or 9906 of this title for the earliest appropriate fiscal year shall be reduced by an amount equal to the funds provided under this subsection to such eligible entity.

(Pub. L. 97–35, title VI, §678C, as added Pub. L. 105–285, title II, §201, Oct. 27, 1998, 112 Stat. 2743.)
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**Certification
      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,**




**As
      Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Global Matrechs, Inc.
      (the “Registrant”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
      undersigned President, Chief Executive Officer, and acting Chief Financial
      Officer of the Registrant, certifies, to his best knowledge and belief, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




(2)  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant.




Date: August
                  22, 2005
                By:
                /s/ Michael
                  SheppardName:Michael
                  SheppardTitle:President,
                  CEO and acting
                  CFO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM
10-Q FOR THE FISCAL QUARTER IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH A
LEGEND.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              OCT-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                      $4,685,998
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       1,454,037
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  1,474,487
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       6,535,263
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         6,602,717
<LOANS>                                    115,612,810
<ALLOWANCE>                                    142,743
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             132,573,605
<DEPOSITS>                                  78,202,279
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,379,944
<LONG-TERM>                                 28,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        20,476
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,970,876
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             132,573,605
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,125,046
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              150,909
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                31,098
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             2,307,053
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             877,799
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,240,470
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,066,583
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    9,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                463,538
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                651,297
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     651,297
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   424,238
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .29
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.45
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                   275,839
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               133,493
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                       250
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              142,743
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           142,743
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         15,000


</TABLE>
### §4653. Expenses incidental to transfer of title to United States

The head of a Federal agency, as soon as practicable after the date of payment of the purchase price or the date of deposit in court of funds to satisfy the award of compensation in a condemnation proceeding to acquire real property, whichever is the earlier, shall reimburse the owner, to the extent the head of such agency deems fair and reasonable, for expenses he necessarily incurred for—

(1) recording fees, transfer taxes, and similar expenses incidental to conveying such real property to the United States;

(2) penalty costs for prepayment of any preexisting recorded mortgage entered into in good faith encumbering such real property; and

(3) the pro rata portion of real property taxes paid which are allocable to a period subsequent to the date of vesting title in the United States, or the effective date of possession of such real property by the United States, whichever is the earlier.

(Pub. L. 91–646, title III, §303, Jan. 2, 1971, 84 Stat. 1906.)
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

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CABN 44332)

United States Attorney

BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN 163973)

Chief, Criminal Division

DEBORAH R. DOUGLAS (NYBN 2099372)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, 11th Floor

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7200 

Facsimile: (415) 436-7234

E-Mail: deborah.r.douglas@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

URSULA NGOZI OGAMBA, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR09-00776 DLJ

ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER

THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT, 18 U.S.C. §

3161 ET SEQ.

On June 4, 2010, the defendant Ursula Ngozi Ogamba was arraigned before the magistrate

judge. The matter was continued to July 16, 2010 at 9 a.m. for status before the Honorable D.

Lowell Jensen, United States District Judge. For the reasons stated in open court on June 4, 2010,

the Court excluded time under the Speedy Trial Act from June 4, 2010 to July 16, 2010 to enable

effective defense preparation, including review of the discovery. The Court found that (A) failure

to grant the continuance would unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for

effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence; and (B) the ends of justice

Case 3:09-cr-00776-CRB Document 9 Filed 06/07/10 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

served by the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy

trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(7)(A) & (B)(iv).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 7, 2010 ____________________________________

HONORABLE DONNA M. RYU

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

GRANTED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 3:09-cr-00776-CRB Document 9 Filed 06/07/10 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Samuel Williams, Also Known as Samuel Moorer, Also Known as James White, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered December 9, 1976, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, assault in the second degree, assault in the third degree and grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. The defendant and the complainant, the only persons involved in the crime, each accused the other of being the robber. There were no other persons who were witnesses to the crime. Thus, credibility was the only real issue before the jury. In this context, the court allowed each of two police officers to testify to the account of the crime given to them by the complainant. It is error to allow the prosecution to bolster the credibility of a witness by showing that he made prior consistent statements when there was no attempt to discredit the witness by showing that his testimony was a recent fabrication *(Crawford v Nilan,*289 NY 444; Richardson, Evidence [Prince, 10th ed], § 519). While the evidence may have been strong enough to support a guilty verdict if the jury believed the complainant, it was not overwhelming. Since the error may have influenced the jury’s opinion of the credibility of the People’s only eyewitness, it cannot be said that the error was harmless (see *People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230). Martuscello, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6220

SZUNA S. MAYENGO, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-1597-AM) Submitted: April 25, 2002 Decided: May 8, 2002 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Szuna S. Mayengo, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Szuna S. Mayengo appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001) petition as untimely filed. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion, and Mayengo’s informal appellate brief. Because Mayengo failed to challenge on appeal the basis for the district court’s ruling, he has not preserved this issue for our review. 4th Cir. R. 34(b). In any event, it is clear that the district court correctly found Mayengo’s § 2254 petition untimely. Accordingly, we deny Mayengo’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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
Case 3:09-cv-01328-MHP Document 71 Filed 03/02/10 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:09-cv-01328-MHP Document 71 Filed 03/02/10 Page 2 of 3
3/2/2010

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:09-cv-01328-MHP Document 71 Filed 03/02/10 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       2,796,480
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,787,689
<ALLOWANCES>                                   163,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,632,308
<PP&E>                                      86,380,904
<DEPRECIATION>                            (41,857,540)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              52,163,460
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,371,769
<BONDS>                                      2,100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        91,869
<OTHER-SE>                                  44,599,822
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                52,163,460
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,081,277
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,205,059
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               354,733
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             120,333
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,462,316
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,462,316
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,462,316
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.26


</TABLE>
#### § 203.486 Issue date of debentures.

The debentures shall be issued as of the date of the execution of the assignment of the loan in accordance with the requirements of § 203.476(c).
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2941 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2941

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the qualified 
                      small issue bond provisions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 16, 2005

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the qualified 
                      small issue bond provisions.

    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 ``Bond Financing Renewal Act of 
2005''.

SEC. 2. ACCELERATION OF EXPANSION OF QUALIFIED SMALL-ISSUE BOND 
              PROGRAM.

    Subparagraph (G) of section 144(a)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 (relating to additional capital expenditures not taken into 
account) is amended by striking ``2009'' and inserting ``2006''.

SEC. 3. ACQUISITION INTEREST EXPENSES OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FOR 
              SMALL ISSUE BONDS MADE DEDUCTIBLE.

    (a) In General.--Clause (ii) of section 265(b)(3)(B) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain bonds not treated as 
private activity bonds) is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of 
subclause (I), by striking the period at the end of subclause (II) and 
inserting ``, or'', and by inserting after subclause (II) the following 
new subclause:
                                    ``(III) any obligation which is a 
                                qualified small issue bond described in 
                                section 144(a)(12)(B) if such 
                                obligation is part of an issue the 
                                aggregate authorized face amount of 
                                which is less than $2,000,000.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to obligations issued after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
1 

### Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 11:13 AM

To: 'suman.saripalli@kalscott.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov' Subject: Petition for Exemption: KalSco tt Engineering, Inc. (FAA-2014-1064)



### May 28, 2015

Dear Mr. Saripalli:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2014-1064). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Describe the aircraft make, mode l, and type (i.e. - fixed-wing, ro torcraft, lighter-than-air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description shoul d include the maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Hea dquarters or electronically via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov . If you want us to process your request a ny further, we must receive the information described above by June 11, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Nia Daniels Program Analyst

Nia Daniels, ARM

‐ 108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075 nia.daniels@faa.gov
### §8235d. Rules and regulations

#### (a) Proposed rules and regulations

The Secretary shall issue proposed rules and regulations to carry out this part not later than 120 days after June 30, 1980.

#### (b) Final rules and regulations

The Secretary shall issue final rules and regulations to carry out this part not later than 90 days after the issuance of proposed rules and regulations under subsection (a).

(Pub. L. 95–619, title II, §265, as added Pub. L. 96–294, title V, §562, June 30, 1980, 94 Stat. 749.)
Order entered February 10, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-00151-CV

INLAND WESTERN DALLAS LINCOLN PARK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND RPAI 

SOUTHWEST MANAGEMENT, LLC, Appellants

V.

HAI NGUYEN AND MAI NGUYEN, INDIVIDUALS, D/B/A ROMIE'S NAIL 

BOUTIQUE, Appellees

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-08114

ORDER

Before the Court En Banc

Before the Court is appellees’ January 9, 2019 motion for en banc reconsideration. 

Appellees’ motion is DENIED.

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE 

Burns, C.J., Dissenting, joined by Molberg, J., Partida-Kipness, J., and Nowell, J.

Schenck, J, Concurring, joined by Bridges, J., and Evans, J.
Exhibit 99.3

    Certification of Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 1350 of
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code
                ------------------------------------------------


     I, David D. Wesselink, Vice Chairman and Principal Financial Officer of
Metris Companies Inc., certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the
information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2002 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Metris Companies Inc.


                                     /s/ David D. Wesselink
                                     -----------------------------
                                     David D. Wesselink
                                     Vice Chairman
                                     (Principal Financial Officer)
                                     October 22, 2002
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7227

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WENDELL ELLIOT RICCO, a/k/a Money Mike,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CR-93-19, CA-97-488-R)

Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: July 31, 1998

Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wendell Elliot Ricco, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Randall Ramseyer,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) motion. We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.

Ricco, Nos. CR-93-19; CA-97-488-R (W.D. Va. Aug. 12, 1997). We deny

Appellant’s motion to authorize preparation of a transcript at government expense. 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
#### DANIEL H. *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 25440)

Schaller, Flynn and Graendel, Js.

Submitted on briefs May 27

officially released June 28, 2005

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.