alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 505.15 Exempt systems of records used.

The BBG is authorized to use exemptions (k)(1), (k)(2), (k)(4), (k)(5) and (k)(6).
### §6397. Repealed. Pub. L. 95–619, title VI, §691(b)(1), Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3288

Section, Pub. L. 94–163, title V, §527, Dec. 22, 1975, 89 Stat. 964, related to transfer of authority on termination of Federal Energy Administration.
### §§610 to 612. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 610, act May 25, 1926, ch. 383, §14(a–1), as added June 23, 1932, ch. 273, 47 Stat. 332, related to reclassification of lands within the Klamath irrigation district.

Section 611, act July 1, 1946, ch. 529, 60 Stat. 366, related to availability of revenues from lease of Tule Lake marginal lands for refunds, was from the Interior Department Appropriation Act, 1947. Similar provisions were contained in the following prior appropriation acts: July 3, 1945, ch. 262, 59 Stat. 340; June 28, 1944, ch. 298, 58 Stat. 487; July 12, 1943, ch. 219, 57 Stat. 473; July 2, 1942, ch. 473, 56 Stat. 533; June 28, 1941, ch. 259, 55 Stat. 332; June 18, 1940, ch. 395, 54 Stat. 434.

Section 612, acts June 17, 1944, ch. 261, §2(b)–(d), 58 Stat. 279; Aug. 1, 1956, ch. 828, §2(e), 70 Stat. 799, related to lands of the Klamath project being subject to the reclamation laws.

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

#### Contract Approved

Act June 17, 1944, ch. 261, §1, 58 Stat. 279, provided that the contract dated Apr. 28, 1943, negotiated by the Secretary of the Interior with the Klamath Drainage District was approved and that the Secretary was authorized to execute such contract.

#### Reclamation Laws

Act June 17, 1944, ch. 261, §3, 58 Stat. 279, provided that section 612 was part of the Federal reclamation laws.

#### Repayment Contract With Tule Lake Irrigation District

Act Aug. 1, 1956, ch. 828, 70 Stat. 799, authorized Secretary of the Interior to execute a repayment contract with Tule Lake Irrigation District.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Henry Benitez, Appellant.

[832 NYS2d 457]—

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (McGill, J.), rendered June 9, 2003, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of aggravated harassment of an employee by an inmate.

Defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated harassment of an employee by an inmate and was thereafter sentenced to a prison term of 2 to 4 years, to run consecutive to his sentence of 100 years to life that he was already serving. Defendant then appealed and this Court rejected an *Anders*brief and assigned new counsel (28 AD3d 804 [2006]). We now affirm.

Defendant’s argument that County Court erred by failing to *1030afford him the opportunity to withdraw his plea once it became evident that the court could not honor the agreed-upon sentence is not preserved for our review given defendant’s failure to move for withdrawal of the guilty plea or vacatur of the judgment of conviction *(see People v Oliver,*26 AD3d 675, 676 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 760 [2006]). For the same reason, defendant’s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is also unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Graham,*35 AD3d 1039, 1039 [2006]). Despite the foregoing, we have reviewed the record, considered both of defendant’s contentions and find them to be unavailing.

Peters, J.P, Spain, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
#### Wall *v.*Central of Georgia Railway Company.

July 9, 1912.

Complaint for land. Before Judge J. B. Park. Baldwin superior court. May 1, 1911.

*Hines & Vinson,*for plaintiff.

*Lawton & Gunningham*and *Allen & Pottle,*for defendant.

Fish, C. J.

The rule is, that where the plaintiff in an action for land claims under an administrator’s deed,, proof that the intestate died seized and possessed of the property, and that it was sold by the administrator of his estate under an order granted by the ordinary, is sufficient evidence of title, without proof of title in the intestate. This rule, however, is not applicable in the case at bar. The action was in the statutory foj;m for the recovery of land. The land sought to be recovered was a narrow strip on each side of the track of the defendant railway company, which ran through what was known as the “Jordan Place.” The real issue was as to the width of the right of way of the railway company; the plaintiff’s contention being that it was only 20 feet wide, that is, 10 feet on each side from the center of the track; the defendant railway company’s contention being that the right of way was 100 feet wide, that is, 50 feet on each side' from the center of the track. So the strips in controversy were 40 feet wide,' running parallel with the track on each side thereof, and 10 feet .therefrom. There was evidence in behalf of the plaintiff to the effect that the intestate, under whom the plaintiff claimed, died “seized and possessed of the ‘Jordan Place.’” There was uncontradicted evidence to the effect that the railway company had a track in use at the same place through the “Jordan Place” during the lifetime of Jordan, and many years prior to the time, that the intestate went into the possession of the “Jordan Place;” but there was nothing tending to show the width of the right of way of the railway company over the land at that time. It is clear, therefore, that the evidence wholly failed to show that the intestate died seized and possessed of the strips of land sued for. It necessarily follows, as the plaintiff failed to show title from any other source, or in any other way, that the verdict in favor of the defendant, the railway company, was demanded under the evidence. It is unnecessary, in view of this fact, to pass upon the assignments of error as to rulings made during the trial. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices coneur.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         174,552
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       3,056,584
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    296,900,558
<ALLOWANCE>                                     40,333
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             305,478,720
<DEPOSITS>                                           0
<SHORT-TERM>                                 4,665,393
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             13,537
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 15,000,000
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                 285,799,690
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             305,478,720
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              5,510,041
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                    0
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                34,161
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             5,544,202
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        5,544,202
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                343,319
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,200,883
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   5,200,883
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,190,415
<EPS-BASIC>                                12,997.90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                    409,566
<LOANS-PAST>                                   879,128
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                40,333
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               40,333
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
§ 266.634 Reinstatement of the contract of insurance. ( a ) *Conditions for reinstatement.* After the initial claim payment, HUD may reinstate the contract of insurance on the following conditions: ( 1 ) The HFA has not acquired the project;
( 2 ) The mortgagor has cured the default; and
( 3 ) The HFA requests that HUD reinstate the contract of insurance.
( b ) *Notification of reinstatement.* If reinstatement is acceptable to HUD, HUD shall notify the HFA of the date the contract of insurance will be reinstated and shall advise the HFA of the payment needed to reinstate the contract of insurance.
( c ) *Payment.* Within 30 calendar days of the date of the notice under paragraph (b) of this section, the HFA shall pay HUD an amount equal to the initial claim amount, as determined under § 266.628(a)(1), plus an amount equal to the accrued and unpaid interest on the HFA Debenture through the reinstatement date, plus an amount equal to the mortgage insurance premium for the period from the date of reinstatement of the contract of insurance to the next anniversary date for payment of the mortgage insurance premium.
( d ) *Cancellation of debenture.* Upon receipt from the HFA of the amount specified in paragraph (c) of this section, HUD shall return the HFA debenture for cancellation.
( e ) *Continuation of contract of insurance.* Upon reinstatement, the contract of insurance shall continue as if the default had not occurred.
[59 FR 62524, Dec. 5, 1994, as amended at 85 FR 83445, Dec. 22, 2020]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-20975 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOHN FITZGERALD WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-99-CR-169-1

-------------------- March 26, 2001 Before DAVIS, JONES and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Counsel appointed to represent John Fitzgerald Wilson has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Wilson has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
### §1181c. Repealed. Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §702, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2787

Section, act Aug. 28, 1937, ch. 876, title I, §3, 50 Stat. 875, related to classification and reclassification of lands as more suitable for agricultural use.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 94–579, title VII, §702, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2787, provided that the repeal made by section 702 is effective on and after Oct. 21, 1976, except such effective date to be on and after tenth anniversary of date of approval of this Act, Oct. 21, 1976, insofar as homestead laws apply to public lands in Alaska.

#### Savings Provision

Repeal by Pub. L. 94–579 not to be construed as terminating any valid lease, permit, patent, etc., existing on Oct. 21, 1976, see section 701 of Pub. L. 94–579, set out as a note under section 1701 of this title.
#### A. M. Andersen, appellee, v. A. M. Kenning, appellant.

Gen. No. 28,005.

Claim on contract for construction work. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Oscar B. Zipf, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1922.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed May 28, 1923.

Alden, Latham & Young, for appellant; Charles Martin, of counsel. Clark & Clark, for appellee; Russell S. Clark, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350**








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Emergent Group Inc. (the “registrant”)
      on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “report”), I, William M. McKay,
      Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to
      18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(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:
      May
      14, 2007




/s/
            William
                M. McKay
              
              William
                M. McKay
                Chief
                  Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2974 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2974

      To suspend temporarily the duty on Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol 
                        Methoxyphenol Triazine.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 17, 2005

 Mrs. Myrick introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To suspend temporarily the duty on Bis-Ethylhexyloxyphenol 
                        Methoxyphenol Triazine.

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

SECTION 1. BIS-ETHYLHEXYLOXYPHENOL METHOXYPHENOL TRIAZINE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.22.03       Bis-               Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         Ethylhexyloxyphen                                                  31/2008
                         ol Methoxyphenol
                         Triazine (CAS No.
                         187393-00-6)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         2933.69.60)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

814 

KA 11-01344 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CARNI, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

TIMOTHY D. WOOTEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

DAVID J. FARRUGIA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (JOSEPH G. FRAZIER OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

MICHAEL J. VIOLANTE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (LAURA T. BITTNER OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Niagara County

(Richard C. Kloch, Sr., A.J.), rendered June 28, 2011. The judgment

convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the third

degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of assault in the third degree (Penal Law §

120.00 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record

establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived

the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256),

and that valid waiver forecloses any challenge by defendant to the

severity of the sentence (see id. at 255; see generally People v

Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737).

Entered: June 29, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2912 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2912

To reauthorize provisions in the Native American Housing Assistance and 
 Self-Determination Act of 1996 relating to Native Hawaiian low-income 
    housing and Federal loan guarantees for Native Hawaiian housing.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 15, 2005

  Mr. Case (for himself and Mr. Abercrombie) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To reauthorize provisions in the Native American Housing Assistance and 
 Self-Determination Act of 1996 relating to Native Hawaiian low-income 
    housing and Federal loan guarantees for Native Hawaiian housing.

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

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION.

    Section 824 of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4243) is amended by striking 
``fiscal years'' and all that follows and inserting ``fiscal years 2006 
through 2009''.
                                 <all>
```
[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.
**Title:****Dropout rates in the United States[electronic resource]
** 
1991 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999
2000 | 2001 | 2002-2003| 2004 | 2005
 
SuDoc Number:ED 1.329:
Item Number:0461-D-05 (online)
CGP System Number:000550947
 
 
** 
**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.
 
July 24, 2017**********
#### Harvey M. Lifset, Respondent, v Milton Ehrlich et al. Appellants, et al. Defendants.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Trial Term, entered January 10, 1977 in Albany County, which denied defendants’ motion to have this action restored to the Day Calendar. Plaintiif commenced an action to recover legal fees for services rendered on behalf of the defendants. Defendants counterclaimed against plaintiff alleging malpractice. A trial was set down for October 21, 1974 as a day certain. On October 17, 1974 plaintiff obtained an order to show cause which contained a stay of the trial until a motion was heard and determined. In the order granting plaintiff’s motion it was stated in the recital paragraph that plaintiif had moved for an order granting him leave to serve a reply and third-party complaint and further requesting that the trial of the action be stayed until pleadings had been exchanged and examinations held with all necessary and proper parties. In the decretal paragraph of the order it was ordered that the motion be granted upon the condition of the payment by plaintiff to defendants of the sum of $300. This order was entered on January 27, 1975. On November 4, 1974, this action was placed on the Deferred Calendar. On November 4, 1975, the action was struck from the calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404 and rule 861.16 of this court (22 NYCRR 861.16). Defendants’ motion to have the case restored to the Day Calendar was denied in September, 1976. Defendants then moved for resettlement of the order of January 27, 1975 so as to include a stay of the trial in the decretal paragraph. This motion was granted. Thereafter, defendants again moved for an order restoring the action to the Supreme Court Calendar. It is from the order denying this motion that defendants appeal. In order to succeed on their motion defendants were required to show that their counterclaim is meritorious, as well as excusable neglect for their default and lack of prejudice to the plaintiff *(Hickey v Shumacher,*54 AD2d 790). Defendants argue that the stay of the trial barred their efforts to continue the case and, therefore, they have a reasonable excuse for the delay. While the stay may well serve as a valid excuse for the delay, the defendants, nevertheless, are not entitled to the relief they seek. No affidavit of merit was submitted by the defendants other than the affidavit of their attorney. The affidavit must be made by a party or another person with knowledge of the facts *(Frenia v Patno, 25*AD2d 591). The affidavit of defendants’ attorney is hearsay and, thus, insufficient *(Houle v Wilde, 22*AD2d 727). Upon consideration of the entire record, however, we are of the view that justice requires that defendants be afforded a further opportunity to demonstrate merit (see *Williams v Giattini,*49 AD2d 337). Order affirmed, without costs, and without prejudice to defendants’ further application, if so advised, to restore the action to the Trial Calendar. Greenblott, J. P, Sweeney, Staley, Jr., Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. John Whaley, Appellant, v Harold Graham, as Superintendent of Auburn Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[832 NYS2d 841]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Peter E. Corning, A.J.), entered May 12, 2006 in a habeas corpus proceeding. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal be and the same hereby is unanimously dismissed without costs as moot *(see People ex rel. Kendricks v Smith,*52 AD2d 1090 [1976]). Present—Gorski, J.E, Lunn, Fahey, Green and Pine, JJ.