alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §322. Desert lands defined; question how determined

All lands exclusive of timber lands and mineral lands which will not, without irrigation, produce some agricultural crop, shall be deemed desert lands, within the meaning of sections 321 to 323, 325, and 327 to 329 of this title, which fact shall be ascertained by proof of two or more credible witnesses under oath, whose affidavits shall be filed in the land office in which said tract of land may be situated.

The determination of what may be considered desert land shall be subject to the decision and regulation of the Secretary of the Interior or such officer as he may designate.

(Mar. 3, 1877, ch. 107, §§2, 3, 19 Stat. 377; 1946 Reorg. Plan No. 3, §403, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7876, 60 Stat. 1100.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

The first paragraph of this section is from section 2 of act Mar. 3, 1877.

The second paragraph of this section is from the last clause of section 3 of act Mar. 3, 1877. The first clause of section 3 is incorporated in section 323 of this title.

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

#### Section as Unaffected by Submerged Lands Act

Provisions of this section as not amended, modified or repealed by the Submerged Lands Act, see section 1303 of this title.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

"Secretary of the Interior or such officer as he may designate" substituted for "Commissioner of the General Land Office" on authority of section 403 of Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1946, which abolished General Land Office and Commissioner thereof and transferred functions of General Land Office to a new agency in Department of the Interior to be known as Bureau of Land Management. See section 403 of Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1946, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.
[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).
**Title:****Light list. Volume V, Mississippi Riversystem, Mississippi River and its navigable tributaries.
 
2004 | 2006 | 2008
2010 | 2012| 2014 | 2016 | 2017| 2018 | 2019
2020 | 2021
 
SuDoc Number:HS 7.22:V.5/
Item Number:0520-L-05 (online)
CGP System Number:000609071
 
 
 
** 
**Permanent Public Access
** 
Title 44 of the  United States Code (44 U.S.C. Section 1911) stipulates that public access to  official Government information products disseminated through the Federal  Depository Library Program (FDLP) must be maintained permanently in regional  depository libraries and by depository libraries not served by a regional  library. Since online products are not physically distributed to depository  libraries for retention, GPO has assumed responsibility for the provision of  permanent access to Government information products residing on FDsys  servers.
GPO's  permanent public access commitment is also met by bringing  agency-disseminated Internet resources under the purview of GPO and  incorporating them into a digital archive. GPO captures copies of agency  electronic information products, and creates PURLs so that users will be  automatically redirected to the archived products if the information is no  longer accessible on the agency Web site. Please refer to the report Managing  the FDLP Electronic Collection: A Policy and Planning Document for more  information.
 
August 7, 2017********
#### Susan A. Braunstein, Respondent, v Barry R. Braunstein, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered September 7, 1976, which granted the plaintiff former wife’s application for an upward modification of the alimony and child support provisions contained in the divorce decree and directed, *inter alia,*that defendant former husband pay $50 per week for alimony and $75 per week for child support, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of reducing child support from $75 to $50 per week and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs and disbursements. Sufficient proof was adduced as to the parties’ preseparation living standard and in justification of plaintiff’s request for an increased modification of the alimony and child support provisions in the divorce decree. However, the increase in child support from $5 to $75 per week is excessive in light of the defendant’s financial circumstances. Further, plaintiff has demonstrated her ability to seek gainful employment and some of her proffered expenses are related to her employment. (See *Carter v Carter,*58 AD2d 438; *Stern v Stern,*59 AD2d 857.) On this record, modification is limited to the foregoing observations. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Lupiano, Yesawich, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.
### §1474. Availability of receipts from administrative fees for program operations in Mining Law Administration

In fiscal year 1989 all but $742,000 of receipts, and thereafter all receipts from fees established by the Secretary of the Interior for processing of actions relating to the administration of the General Mining Laws shall be available for program operations in Mining Law Administration by the Bureau of Land Management to supplement funds otherwise available, to remain available until expended.

(Pub. L. 100–446, title I, Sept. 27, 1988, 102 Stat. 1774.)
**MFG Process TS**  **- DL12Y4**  **& TS -**  **DL13Y4 Manufacturing Process** 

**Confidential**



## Sanitize **d**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          75,129
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,445
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                87,405
<PP&E>                                         129,152
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 262,071
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,685
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           237
<OTHER-SE>                                     199,638
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   199,875
<SALES>                                         37,137
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,137
<CGS>                                           39,229
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,229
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,586
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,858
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (7,522)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (7,522)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (7,522)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.72)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.72)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 242.70 Fees not required.

The payment of an application, commitment, inspection, or reopening fee shall not be required in connection with the insurance of a mortgage involving the sale by the Secretary of any property acquired under any section or title of the Act.
#### In the Matter of Milana Tarnavsky, Petitioner, v Esther M. Morgenstern, as Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Respondent.

[832 NYS2d 444]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent, Esther M. Morgenstern, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 16, 2006, which summarily adjudged the petitioner guilty of criminal contempt of court, and a determination of the respondent dated September 6, 2006, which again summarily adjudged the petitioner guilty of criminal contempt of court and sentenced her to a term of imprisonment of 10 days. By order to show cause dated September 7, 2006, enforcement of the determinations was stayed.

Adjudged that the petition is granted, on the facts, without costs or disbursements, and the determinations are annulled.

Summary contempt adjudication was not warranted under the circumstances of this case *(see*Judiciary Law § 755). The petitioner’s conduct did not disrupt or threaten to disrupt the proceedings, nor did it destroy or undermine, or tend seriously to destroy or undermine, the dignity of the court so that the court was unable to continue to conduct its normal business in an appropriate way *(see*Judiciary Law § 750 [A]; 22 NYCRR 701.2 [a]; *Matter of Greenberg v Starkey,*20 AD3d 419, 420 [2005]; *Matter of Brunetti v Gary,*300 AD2d 583, 583 [2002]). Accordingly, both summary contempt adjudications must be annulled. Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Skelos and Fisher, JJ., concur.
#### (A) Albert C. Simonson v. International Bank. (B) Alma Bostrom v. Presbyterian Hospital in the City of New York. (C) In the Matter of Harold Anderson et al. v. Theodore H. Lang et al.

Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, McNally and Eager, JJ. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, McNally and Stevens, JJ. Concur — Breitel, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Steuer and Bergan, JJ. [In each action] Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, with $10 costs.
EXHIBIT 32.1



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



          In connection with the Quarterly Report of ACI Telecentrics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Rick N. Diamond, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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




Dated: /s/ August 14, 2003             By: /s/  RICK N. DIAMOND
       --------------------------          -----------------------------------
                                           Rick N. Diamond
                                           Chief Executive Officer

                                       22
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Juan Pacheco, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 3, 1977, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the facts, indictment dismissed, and case remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the purpose of entering an order in its discretion pursuant to CPL 160.50. The People failed to prove defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Suozzi, J, P., Gulotta, Margett and Hawkins, JJ., concur.
IIB 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2978 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 17, 2006 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To allow the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck 

Indian Reservation to enter into a lease or other temporary conveyance of water rights recognized under the 

Fort Peck-Montana Compact for the purpose of meeting 

the water needs of the Dry Prairie Rural Water Association, Incorporated, and for other purposes. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

HR 2978 RFS 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MONTANA INDIAN TRIBES; AGREEMENT WITH 

4 DRY PRAIRIE RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION, 

5 INCORPORATED. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes 

7 of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation (referred to in this 

8 section as the ‘‘Tribes’’) may, with the approval of the 

9 Secretary of the Interior, enter into a lease or other tem10 porary conveyance of water rights recognized under the 

11 Fort Peck-Montana Compact (Montana Code Annotated 

12 85–20–201) for the purpose of meeting the water needs 

13 of the Dry Prairie Rural Water Association, Incorporated 

14 (or any successor entity), in accordance with section 5 of 

15 the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Act of 

16 2000 (Public Law 106–382; 114 Stat. 1454). 

17 (b) CONDITIONS OF LEASE.—With respect to a lease 

18 or other temporary conveyance described in subsection 

19 (a)— 

20 (1) the term of the lease or conveyance shall 

21 not exceed 100 years; 

22 (2) the lease or conveyance may be approved by 

23 the Secretary of the Interior without monetary com24 pensation to the Tribes; and 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
3 

HR 2978 RFS 

1 (3) the Secretary of the Interior shall not be 

2 subject to liability for any claim or cause of action 

3 relating to the compensation or consideration re4 ceived by the Tribes under the lease or conveyance. 

5 (c) NO PERMANENT ALIENATION OF WATER.—Noth6 ing in this section authorizes any permanent alienation of 

7 any water by the Tribes. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 16, 2006. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Edward Gordon (Scottaline), Appellant.

Motion for assignment of counsel denied.
### §8471. Effect on environmental requirements

#### (a) Compliance with applicable environmental requirements

Except as provided in section 8374 of this title, nothing in this chapter shall be construed as permitting any existing or new electric powerplant to delay or avoid compliance with applicable environmental requirements.

#### (b) Local environmental requirements

In the case of any new or existing facility—

(1) which is subject to any prohibition under this chapter, and

(2) which is also subject to any requirement of any local environmental requirement which may be stricter than any Federal or State environmental requirement,

the existence of such local requirement shall not be construed to affect the validity or applicability of such prohibition to such facility, except to the extent provided under section 8322(b) or section 8352(b) of this title; and the existence of such prohibition shall not be construed to preempt such local requirement with respect to that facility.

(Pub. L. 95–620, title VII, §761, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3345; Pub. L. 100–42, §1(c)(23), May 21, 1987, 101 Stat. 314.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b)(1), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 95–620, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3289, known as the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 8301 of this title and Tables.

#### Amendments

1987—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100–42 struck out "or major fuel-burning installation" after "powerplant".
#### § 108.35 Complaints.

Individuals and private and public entities may file complaints alleging violations of the AFHM regulations or an approved AFHM plan with any monitoring office, civil rights/compliance reviewing office, or with the Assistant Secretary for FH&EO. Complaints will be referred to the civil rights/compliance reviewing office. Where there is an allegation of a violation of title VIII the complaint also will be processed under part 105.

[44 FR 47013, Aug. 9, 1979, as amended at 64 FR 44096, Aug. 12, 1999]
[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:****News. Employment cost index forthe Northeast.**
 
SuDoc Number:L 2.117/2:

Item Number:0769-K (online)
CGP systemNumber:000931175
 
2000: Jun| 2001: MarSep | 2002: MarSep |2003: SepDec
 
March 6, 2020
#### § 207.254 Changes in premiums; manner of publication.

Notice of future premium changes will be published in the Federal Register. The Department will propose MIP changes for multifamily mortgage insurance programs and provide a 30-day public comment period for the purpose of accepting comments on whether the proposed changes are appropriate. After the comments have been considered, the Department will publish a final notice announcing the premiums for each program and their effective date. The provisions of paragraph (g) of 24 CFR 207.252 shall apply to any notice of future premium changes published pursuant to this section.

[66 FR 35073, July 2, 2001]
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NOVENDER FLEMING,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

NADIA CLARK, et al.,

Defendant(s). 

VICTOR JONES,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

NADIA CLARK, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C09-1613 BZ

and Consolidated Case

No. C09-4757 BZ

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

REQUEST TO RE-OPEN DISCOVERY

Plaintiffs’ request to re-open discovery (Doc. No. 101)

is DENIED. In their motion for leave to amend the complaint,

plaintiffs stated that “it makes sense to add all relevant

claims, particularly those that do not require additional

discovery, especially those that are supported by the

evidence.” Doc. No. 75 p. 2. Plaintiffs characterized their

amendment as “academic” and “supported by the discovery thus

Case 3:09-cv-01613-BZ Document 103 Filed 05/12/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

far.” Id. at 3. Finally, plaintiffs directly stated that

they did not “foresee” any additional discovery being

necessary, which was a representation that the Court relied

upon when ruling on the motion to amend. Doc. No. 76 ¶ 17.

Dated: May 12, 2010

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\FLEMING v. CLARK\ORDER DENYING PLT'S REQUEST TO RE-OPEN

DISCOVERY.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-01613-BZ Document 103 Filed 05/12/10 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of Illinois, defendant in error, v. Albert J. Moore and Gabriel S. Adams, plaintiffs in error.

Gen. No. 28,319.

Indictment for conspiracy to obtain money by a confidence game and by false pretenses. Verdict of guilty. Sentence to jail and fine. Error to the Criminal Court of Cook county; the Hon. Marcus Kavanagh, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1923.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed June 26, 1923.

George C. Otto, for plaintiffs in error. Robert E. Crowe, State’s Attorney, for defendant in error; Henry T. Chace, Jr., Edward E. Wilson and Clyde C. Fisher, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Fitch

delivered the opinion of the court.
### §9701. Congressional findings and declaration of policy

(a) The Congress finds that—

(1) nuclear energy is one of the two major energy sources available for electric energy production in the United States during the balance of the twentieth century;

(2) continued development of nuclear power is dependent upon maintaining an extremely high level of safety in the operation of nuclear plants, and on public recognition that these facilities do not constitute a significant threat to human health or safety;

(3) it is the responsibility of utilities, as owners and operators of nuclear powerplants, to assure that such plants are designed and operated safely and reliably; and

(4) a proper role of the Federal Government in assuring nuclear powerplant safety, in addition to its regulatory function, is the conduct of a research, development, and demonstration program to provide important scientific and technical information which can contribute to sound design and safe operation of these plants.

(b) It is declared to be the policy of the United States and the purpose of this chapter to establish a research, development, and demonstration program for developing practical improvements in the generic safety of nuclear powerplants during the next five years, beginning in the fiscal year 1981. The objectives of such program shall be—

(1) to reduce the likelihood and severity of potentially serious nuclear powerplant accidents; and

(2) to reduce the likelihood of disrupting the population in the vicinity of nuclear powerplants as the result of nuclear powerplant accidents.

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as preventing the Secretary from undertaking projects or activities, in addition to those specified in this chapter, which appropriately further the purpose and objectives set forth in this subsection. Nothing in this chapter shall authorize the Secretary to assume responsibility for the management, cleanup or repair of any commercial nuclear powerplant. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as limiting the authority of the Secretary under any other law.

(Pub. L. 96–567, §2, Dec. 22, 1980, 94 Stat. 3329.)

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

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 96–567, §1, Dec. 22, 1980, 94 Stat. 3329, provided: "That this Act [enacting this chapter] may be cited as the 'Nuclear Safety Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1980'."
exhibit_10-30.htm










Exhibit 10.30


 


Chardan Capital Markets, LLC


17 State Street


Suite 1600


New York, NY 10004




 



	 	November 12, 2010





 


Via Email







BIOCANCELL THERAPEUTICS INC.


8 Hartom St.


POB 45389


Jerusalem, Israel 91451


Attn: Uri Danon, Chief Executive Officer








	
  

	
Re:   Termination of October 19, 2010 Letter Agreement












Dear Mr. Danon,







This letter will confirm that notwithstanding the survival provisions reflected in that Termination Letter dated November 8, 2010, terminating that certain Letter Agreement dated October 19, 2010 (“Letter Agreement”) between BioCancell Therapeutics Inc. (“BioCancell”) and Chardan Capital Markets, LLC ("Chardan"), Chardan will not be entitled to receive any fees or monies or other compensation set forth in the Letter Agreement other than the reimbursement of actual out of pocket expenses paid by Chardan.







Please confirm your understanding of the foregoing of by countersigning where indicated below. 


 



	 	Sincerely yours, 
 


__________________________


Chardan Capital Markets, LLC







 


Acknowledged and agreed:


 


__________________________


BioCancell Therapeutics Inc.
§ 291.306 Closing requirements. ( a ) *Closing date payment.* On the closing date, the purchaser must pay to HUD the closing date payment, consisting of the balance of the amount due on the bid price, as adjusted in accordance with the Loan Sale Agreement.
( b ) *Closing documents.* HUD will execute and deliver to the purchaser a bill of sale transferring title to the mortgage loans sold in the sale. The purchaser must deliver to HUD the documents required at closing, in addition to the closing date payment.