alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §9212. General provisions

#### (a) Additional projects or activities

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as preventing the Secretary from undertaking projects or activities in addition to those specified in this chapter if such projects or activities appropriately further the purposes set forth in this subsection.1

#### (b) Application to States, territories and possessions

This chapter applies to each of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the territories and possessions of the United States including the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

(Pub. L. 96–345, §13, Sept. 8, 1980, 94 Stat. 1146.)

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Termination of Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

For termination of Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, see note set out preceding section 1681 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.

1 So in original. Probably should be "chapter."
```

[House Report 110-440]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

110th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    110-440

======================================================================

 
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACCOMPANY THE 
BILL (H.R. 1429) TO REAUTHORIZE THE HEAD START ACT, TO IMPROVE PROGRAM 
           QUALITY, TO EXPAND ACCESS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                _______
                                

  November 9, 2007.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

    Ms. Castor, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 813]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 813, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution waives all points of order against the 
conference report on H.R. 1429, the Improving Head Start for 
School Readiness Act of 2007 and against its consideration. The 
rule provides that the conference report shall be considered as 
read.

                         EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

    The waiver of all points of order against the conference 
report and against its consideration includes a waiver of 
clause 8 of rule XXII (requiring a three-day layover of 
conference reports and the accompanying joint explanatory 
statement). Although the rule waives all points of order 
against the conference report and against its consideration, 
the conference report does not violate either clause 9 or 10 of 
rule XXI.

                                  

```
1

 Rule 10 (Court of Appeals). Affirmance Without Opinion. The Court, with the

concurrence of all jduges participating in the case, may affirm the action of the trial court by

order without rendering a formal opinion when an opinion would have no precedential value and

one or more of the following circumstances exist and are dispositive of the appeal:

(1) the Court concurs in the facts as found or as found by

necessary implication by the trial court.

(2) there is material evidence to support the verdict of the jury.

(3) no reversible error of law appears.

 Such cases may be affirmed as follows: “Affirmed in accordance with Court of Appeals Rule

10(a).”

FILED

December 28, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appe llate Court C lerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

WESTERN SECTION AT JACKSON

 ______________________________________________

IN RE: ESTATE OF FROM THE SHELBY COUNTY

PURNIE ANN ALLEN, PROBATE COURT, No. B-26326

Deceased, THE HONORABLE LEONARD 

PIEROTTI, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

C.A. No. 02A01-9808-PB-00232

C. Michael Robbins of Memphis

William D. Massey of Memphis

For Appellant, William B. Allen, Sr.

R. Michael Potter; Beth Weems 

Bradley; Burch, Porter & Johnson

of Memphis

For Appellee, William B. Allen, Jr.

____________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

AND ORDER

___________________________________________________________________________

CRAWFORD, J.

Petitioner, William B. Allen, Sr., a life beneficiary of a trust, appeals the order of the

Probate Court denying a petition to remove the trustee, respondent, William B. Allen, Jr..

The order appealed denying the removal of the trustee also deferred for later

consideration a cross petition filed by the respondent-trustee. At the time of oral argument, the

Court was preliminarily of the opinion that the judgment was not a final judgment appealable

as of right pursuant to T.R.A.P. 3. In retrospect, however, we are of the opinion that probate

matters because of their continuing nature can have finality as to various proceedings over the

course of time. Our courts have long established that appeals from orders removing or refusing
2

to remove executors or administrators are appealable as in other cases. 2 Jack Robinson, Jr. &

Jeff Mobley, Pritchard on Wills and Administration of Estates § 616 (5th ed. 1994); see In Re

Wooten’s Estate, 114 Tenn. 289, 85 S.W. 1105 (1905); Rhodes v. Boyer, 106 Tenn. 434, 61

S.W. 776 (1901). As testamentary trustees may be removed by the probate court and occupy a

somewhat analogous position to executors or administrators, this rule should equally apply to

trustees. Accordingly, we determine that this case is properly appealed to this Court.

After careful consideration of the entire record, the judgment is affirmed in accordance

with Court of Appeals Rule 10(a). Costs of the appeal are assessed to appellant for which

execution may issue, if necessary.

_________________________________

W. FRANK CRAWFORD, 

PRESIDING JUDGE, W.S.

__________________________________

ALAN E. HIGHERS, JUDGE

__________________________________

DAVID R. FARMER, JUDGE
#### § 140.2 Authorities.

Authority to implement FAA Section 487 was delegated by the President to the Secretary of State by E.O. 12163, as amended, and further delegated by the Secretary to the Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs by Delegation of Authority No. 145, dated Feb. 4, 1980 (45 FR 11655), as amended.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Robert L.Voelk, certify that:

1. I have reviewedthis quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Omtool, Ltd.;

2. Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’sother certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

**b)[Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained inSEC Release 34-47986 and 33-8618.]**

c) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’sother certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:

a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  August7, 2006
|   | By:    |  /s/ Robert L. Voelk |   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Robert L. Voelk           |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer   |

 

----
§ 521.26 Form, filing and service of papers. ( a ) *Form.* ( 1 ) Documents filed with the ALJ shall include an original and two copies.
( 2 ) Every pleading and paper filed in the proceeding shall contain a caption setting forth the title of the action, the case number assigned by the ALJ, and a designation of the paper (e.g., motion to quash subpoena), and shall be in English or accompanied by an English translation.
( 3 ) Every pleading and paper shall be signed by, and shall contain the address and telephone number of, the party or the person on whose behalf the paper was filed, or his or her representative.
( 4 ) Papers are considered filed when they are mailed. Date of mailing may be established by a certificate from the party or its representative or by proof that the document was sent by certified or registered mail.
( b ) *Service.* A party filing a document with the ALJ shall, at the time of filing, serve a copy of such document on every other party. Service upon any party of any document other than those required to be served as prescribed in § 521.8, shall be made by delivering a copy or by placing a copy of the document in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to the party's last known address. When a party is represented by a representative, service shall be made upon such representative in lieu of the actual party.
( c ) *Proof of service.* A certificate of the individual serving the document by personal delivery or by mail, setting forth the manner of service, shall be proof of service.
Exhibit 32

Certification

Each of the undersigned officers of Allin Corporation (the Company), certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | the Companys report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (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 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by
the Company for the purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



|                |  |  |  |                        
|--------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|August 14, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Richard W. Talarico
|                |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
|                |  | 
|August 14, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Dean C. Praskach   
|                |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will
be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### §1471f. Availability of appropriations for incremental funding of research work orders for cooperative agreements

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in fiscal year 1995 and thereafter, appropriations made to the Department of the Interior in this title 1 or provided from other Federal agencies through reimbursable or other agreements pursuant to sections 1535 and 1536 of title 31 may be used to fund incrementally research work orders for cooperative agreements with colleges and universities, State agencies, and nonprofit organizations that overlap fiscal years: Provided, That such cooperative agreements shall contain a statement that "the obligation of funds for future incremental payments shall be subject to the availability of funds."

(Pub. L. 103–332, title I, §115, Sept. 30, 1994, 108 Stat. 2519; Pub. L. 105–83, title I, §116, Nov. 14, 1997, 111 Stat. 1563.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This title, referred to in text, is title I of Pub. L. 103–332, Sept. 30, 1994, 108 Stat. 2499, known as the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

#### Codification

"Sections 1535 and 1536 of title 31" was substituted in text for "the Economy Act" 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.

#### Amendments

1997—Pub. L. 105–83 inserted "or provided from other Federal agencies through reimbursable or other agreements pursuant to sections 1535 and 1536 of title 31" after "in this title".

1 See References in Text note below.
#### Avetik ALAVERDIAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-73160.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 2007.*

Filed March 15, 2007.

Elsa I. Martinez, Esq., Martinez Golds-by *&*Associates, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michelle E. Gorden Latour, Esq., P. Michael Truman, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Avetik Alaverdian, a native of Azerbaijan and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, *see Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Alaverdian’s untimely motion to reopen was not subject to equitable tolling. Alaverdian failed to present evidence demonstrating when he consulted new counsel and thus failed to demonstrate that he exercised diligence in discovering his initial attorney’s alleged ineffective assistance. *Cf. Iturribarria,*321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who establishes that he exercised due diligence in discovering the deception, fraud, or error of his original counsel).

We lack jurisdiction to review Alaverdi-an’s argument that his petition for review of the BIA’s underlying decision stayed the filing deadline for his motion to reopen because he did not make that argument before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### FRANKENSTEIN v. CUMMISKY et al.

(Supreme Court, Trial Term, Kings County.

March, 1905.)

City Maeshal—Liability on Bond—Levy on Goods of Thibd Pebson.

A city marshal and his sureties are liable in damages on a general clause in his bond “for the faithful discharge of his duties,” or equivalent general words, for a levy on the goods of one person under an execution or other process against the goods of another person.

Action by Sarah Frankenstein against Margaret Cummisky and another. Motion by plaintiff for new trial granted.

Samuel I. Frankenstein, for plaintiff.

John J. Clancy, for defendants. .

GAYNOR, J.

This is an action against the sureties on the official bond of a city marshal of the former city of Brooklyn. The bond was that the marshal “shall faithfully discharge the duties of his office, and shall promptly account for and pay over all moneys of property received by him as officer in accordance with the law.” This was in accordance with the terms of the city charter (title 3, § 4), and of the statute substituting marshals for constables (Laws 1896, p. 1423, c. 1000).

The complaint alleges that the marshal levied Upon and took goods of the plaintiff under an execution issued to him against the property of another person. It must be deemed as settled in this state that an officer and his sureties are liable in damages on a general clause in his bond “for the faithful discharge of his duties,” or equivalent general words, for a levy on the goods of one person under an execution or other process against the goods of another person. The People v. Schuyler, 4 N. Y. 173; Berry v. Schaad, 50 App. Div. 132, 63 N. Y. Supp. 349; Fohs v. Rain, 39 Misc. Rep. 316, 79 N. Y. Supp. 872. In People ex rel. v. Lucas, 93 N. Y. 585, the words of the bond were not general, i. e., for the faithful performance of the duties of the office, but restricted, and it was only held that they were too restricted to support an action like the present

Motion granted.
### §7276g. Western Area Power Administration; deposit and availability of funds related to Falcon and Amistad Dams

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 2 of the Act of June 18, 1954 (68 Stat. 255) as amended, and section 3302 of title 31, all funds collected by the Western Area Power Administration from the sale of power and related services from the Falcon and Amistad Dams that are applicable to the repayment of the annual expenses of the hydroelectric facilities of these Dams and associated Western Area Power Administration activities in this and subsequent fiscal years shall be credited to this account as discretionary offsetting collections for the sole purpose of funding such expenses, with such funds remaining available until expended: Provided further, That for purposes of this appropriation, annual expenses means expenditures that are generally recovered in the same year that they are incurred.

(Pub. L. 111–85, title III, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2871.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 2 of the Act of June 18, 1954 (68 Stat. 255), referred to in text, probably means section 2 of act June 18, 1954, ch. 310, 68 Stat. 256, which is not classified to the Code.

"This account" and "this appropriation", referred to in text, mean funds appropriated under the heading "Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund" of title III of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub. L. 111–85.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, and not as part of the Department of Energy Organization Act which comprises this chapter.
#### § 911.6 Finality of choice.

An alleged violation of an institutional right as reflected in a collective bargaining agreement may be filed under these procedures or as an unfair labor practice, but not both.
### SUBCHAPTER IV—LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN DEVELOPMENT FUND
#### § 1000.146 Are binding commitments for the remaining useful life of property applicable to a family member or household member who subsequently takes ownership of a homeownership unit?

No. The transfer of a homeownership unit to a family member or household member is not subject to a binding commitment for the remaining useful life of the property. Any subsequent transfer by the family member or household member to a third party (not a family member or household member) is subject to any remaining useful life under a binding commitment.

[77 FR 71526, Dec. 3, 2012]
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\JLALL\CASES\CIVIL\09-0758\90daydismissal.wpd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE ROCHIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF CONCORD, ET AL.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 09-0758 JL

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The parties hereto, by their counsel, having advised the court that they have agreed

to a settlement of this cause, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this cause of action be

dismissed with prejudice; provided, however that if any party hereto shall certify to this

court, within ninety days, with proof of service thereof, that the agreed consideration for

said settlement has not been delivered over, the foregoing order shall stand vacated and

this cause shall forthwith be restored to the calendar to be set for trial.

DATED: April 28, 2010 

__________________________________

 James Larson

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00758-JL Document 40 Filed 04/28/10 Page 1 of 1
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 10, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00623

- CR

Matthew SERNA, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16

- 05

- 0186

- CRA

Honorable Russell Wi lson, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

T he Appellant ’ s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANT ED . The Appellant ’ s brief is due on August 9, 2019.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand an d affixed the seal of the said

court on this 10th day of July, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
### SUBCHAPTER XLIV—LOWER TETON DIVISION OF TETON BASIN PROJECT, IDAHO