alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §94. Reimbursement of sums disbursed as special disbursing agents

The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to pay, out of any unexpended balances of appropriations for contingent expenses of land offices, for the expenses of hearings in land entries and the expenses of depositing public moneys, such sums as have been or may be disbursed by officers designated by the Secretary of the Interior acting as special disbursing agents at United States land offices, before the receipt of Government funds: Provided, That no payment shall be made under this section in excess of the amount appropriated by the Congress for the particular purpose in each instance and for the fiscal year in which such disbursements were made: Provided, That all such disbursements shall have been or shall be made in pursuance of law in carrying out departmental regulations or to meet authorizations by the Secretary of the Interior or such officer as he may designate: Provided further, That the accounts containing such items shall have been duly approved by the Secretary of the Interior or such officer as he may designate.

(Mar. 2, 1907, ch. 2563, 34 Stat. 1245; Oct. 28, 1921, ch. 114, §1, 42 Stat. 208; Mar. 3, 1925, ch. 462, 43 Stat. 1145; 1946 Reorg. Plan No. 3, §403, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7876, 60 Stat. 1100.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

This section, as originally enacted, referred to receivers of public moneys. The office of receiver was consolidated with that of register by acts Mar. 3, 1925, and Oct. 28, 1921, under which the office of receiver was abolished. See, also, Transfer of Functions note below.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of the Interior, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of the Interior, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1950, §§1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1262, set out under section 1451 of this title.

"Officers designated by the Secretary of the Interior" substituted for "registers" and "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. See note set out under section 1 of this title.
### §981. Indemnity to States on sale of lands

Upon proof by the authorized agent of the State, before the Secretary of the Interior or such officer as he may designate, that any of the lands purchased by any person from the United States, prior to March 2, 1855, were "swamp lands", within the true intent and meaning of the Act entitled "An Act to enable the State of Arkansas and other States to reclaim the swamp lands within their limits", approved September 28, 1850, the purchase money shall be paid over to the State wherein said land is situate; and when the lands have been located by warrant or scrip, the said State shall be authorized to locate a like quantity of any of the public lands subject to entry, at $1.25 per acre, or less, and patents shall issue therefor. The decision of the Secretary or such officer shall be first approved by the Secretary of the Interior.

(R.S. §2482; 1946 Reorg. Plan No. 3, §403, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7876, 60 Stat. 1100.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Act approved September 28, 1850, referred to in text, is act Sept. 28, 1850, ch. 84, 9 Stat. 519, which is not classified to the Code.

#### Codification

R.S. §2482 derived from act Mar. 2, 1855, ch. 147, §2, 10 Stat. 634, 635.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of the Interior, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of the Interior, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1950, §§1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1262, set out under section 1451 of this title.

"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.
#### § 401.300 What is a PRA?

A PRA is an agreement between HUD and a PAE that delineates rights and responsibilities in connection with development and implementation of a Restructuring Plan. The PRA must contain or incorporate by reference the matters required by section 513(a)(2) of MAHRA and §§ 401.301 through 401.314, as well as other terms and conditions required by HUD.
Process Flow Sheet ( CBI )

CBI
###### Editorial Note on Part 3282

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3282 appear at 78 FR 60199, Oct. 1, 2013.

#### § 3282.209 Report requirements.

The manufacturer shall submit reports to the PIAs, SAAs, and the Secretary as required by subpart L of these regulations.
### §1320A. Historical societies' publications

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and with the approval of the Joint Committee on Printing, the Director of the Government Publishing Office shall provide for such printing services and distribution with respect to publications of the United States Capitol Historical Society, the Supreme Court Historical Society, or the White House Historical Association as such Society or Association may request: Provided, That such Society or Association reimburses the Director of the Government Publishing Office for the actual expenses incurred by him in providing for such services and distribution.

(Added Pub. L. 96–536, §101(c), Dec. 16, 1980, 94 Stat. 3167; amended Pub. L. 113–235, div. H, title I, §1301(c)(1), Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2537.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is based on section 304(a) of H.R. 7593, as passed the House of Representatives, July 21, 1980, and incorporated by reference in section 101(c) of Pub. L. 96–536, to be effective as if enacted into law.

#### Amendments

2014—Pub. L. 113–235 substituted "Director of the Government Publishing Office" for "Public Printer" in two places.
### **CHAPTER 17—RESERVATION AND SALE OF TOWN SITES ON PUBLIC LANDS**

Sec.
711 to 736. Repealed.
737.
Unrestricted deeds for townsite lands held by Alaska natives.
738.
Repealed.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (i)
    
    the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) of the Company for the
year ended December 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  By:
    /s/ John EmeryJohn EmeryChief Executive Officer 47
#### Town of Brookhaven, Respondent, v Monster Restaurant, Inc., Appellant.

In an action for a mandatory injunction to compel defendant to remove an allegedly illegal structural extension on its property, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered September 21, 1977, which granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction preventing it from using or occupying for any purpose the structural extension. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, and motion denied. Appellant, which operates "The Monster Restaurant” in the community of Cherry Grove on Fire Island, essentially admits that a structural extension of the front of the restaurant exists in violation of applicable zoning provisions of the Town of Brookhaven. The town commenced this action for a permanent injunction and then moved, pursuant to CPLR 6301, for a preliminary injunction, alleging that the continued use of the structure produced injury to it. Special Term granted the preliminary injunction, holding that "the plaintiff has demonstrated a clear legal right to injunctive relief and is entitled to a preliminary injunction”. We disagree. The moving papers contain unsubstiantiated conclusory allegations that the *981town is suffering "vicarious” injuries which are detrimental to the well-being of the community as a result of the appellant’s use and occupancy of the structural extension. The town has completely failed to demonstrate, as is required by the statute, any injuries whatsoever. Furthermore, the preliminary injunction, which effectively puts a substantial portion of the appellant’s restaurant out of use, seriously disrupts the *status quo*in favor of the town and does not serve to re-establish the parties’ positions at a prelitigation stage (see *Schlosser v United Presbyt. Home at Syosset,*56 AD2d 615; *Flynn v Levesque,*43 AD2d 840; *7A*Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 6301.16, p 63-33). Damiani, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
### §620h. Saving provisions

Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to alter, amend, repeal, construe, interpret, modify, or be in conflict with the provisions of the Boulder Canyon Project Act (45 Stat. 1057) [43 U.S.C. 617 et seq.], the Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act (54 Stat. 774) [43 U.S.C. 618 et seq.], the Colorado River Compact, the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, the Rio Grande Compact of 1938, or the treaty with the United Mexican States (Treaty Series 994).

(Apr. 11, 1956, ch. 203, §9, 70 Stat. 110.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Boulder Canyon Project Act, referred to in text, is act Dec. 21, 1928, ch. 42, 45 Stat. 1057, which is classified generally to subchapter I (§617 et seq.) of chapter 12A of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 617t of this title and Tables.

The Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act, referred to in text, is act July 19, 1940, ch. 643, 54 Stat. 774, which is classified generally to subchapter II (§618 et seq.) of chapter 12A of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 618o of this title and Tables.
### **CHAPTER 6—MEDIATION, CONCILIATION, AND ARBITRATION IN CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN CARRIERS AND EMPLOYEES**
#### Lawrence Weinstein v. Frizzie Corporation et al.

Motion for an order modifying the order of this court entered on December 8, 1960, denied, with $10 costs. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.
#### Carol Farkas, as Guardian for Andrea Farkas, et al., Respondents, v Alan S. Garner, Individually and as Trustee of Theodore A. Garner, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on December 8, 1976, granting plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin defendant from using trust funds in the defense of this action and directing him to reimburse the fund for counsel fees withdrawn for the defense of the action, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements, for the reasons stated at Special Term. Order and judgment Supreme Court, New York County, entered on January 6, 1977, granting plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment herein unanimously modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, only' to the extent of permitting the parties to settle an order hereon suggesting appropriate safeguards for the protection of the infants’ funds. As so modified, the order and judgment are affirmed for the reason stated at Special Term, without costs and without disbursements. The parties acknowledge that safeguards are necessary for the protection of the infants’ funds and we agree. Perhaps the parties can utilize procedure similar in nature to that set forth in EPTL 7-4.1 in moulding appropriate protection of those funds. If not, other viable suggestions with regard to the power of disposition of such funds will be considered by this court upon submission of an order containing same, which is to be settled hereon. We have examined the other contentions raised by appellant and find them to be without merit. Settle order on notice. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Lupiano and Capozzoli, JJ.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Corley, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2021-Ohio-1437.] 

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. CORLEY. 

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Corley, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2021-Ohio-1437.] 

(No. 2020-0221—Submitted April 20—Decided April 26 2021.) 

ON APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT. 

____________________ 

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an 

application for reinstatement by respondent, Byron Dexter Corley, Attorney 

Registration No. 0077609, last known business address in Mansfield, Ohio. 

{¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of June 16, 2020, wherein 

the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(12)(A)(3), suspended respondent from the 

practice of law for a period of two years with the final eighteen months stayed on 

conditions, finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and 

with the provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(24). 

{¶ 3} Therefore, it is ordered by this court that respondent is reinstated to 

the practice of law in the state of Ohio. 

{¶ 4} It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certified copies 

of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(E)(1) and that publication be 

made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(E)(2). 

{¶ 5} For earlier case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Corley, 160 N.E.3d 324, 

2020-Ohio-3303, 156 N.E.3d 882. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART,

and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. 

________________________
#### WUEST v. BROOKLYN CITIZEN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 24, 1905.)

1. Libel—Newspaper Publication.

Where an alleged libel, published of and concerning plaintiff, recited: “She went to a prison for an operation. She sank so low. She said it cost five dollars, and that her screams were heard all over the block,”—■ the word “prison” being substituted by mistake for “person,” the obvious *853meaning of the charge was that plaintiff had submitted to a criminal operation, on account of which she had been sent to prison, and was libelous per se.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 32, Cent. Dig. Libel and Slander, §§ 17-70.]

2. Same—Innuendo—Failure of Proof—Effect.

Where, in an action for libel, plaintiff alleged a special meaning, which the proof failed to establish, she was not thereby precluded from insisting on the natural meaning of the words used, they being libelous per se.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 32, Cent. Dig. Libel and Slander, § 208.]

Appeal from Trial Term.

Action by Wanda Wuest against the Brooklyn Citizen. From a judgment in favor of defendant, and from an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial (76 N. Y. Supp. 706), plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Argued before HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and WOODWARD, JENKS, RICH, and MILLER, JJ.

Hugo Wintner, for appellant.

Henry E. Heistad, for respondent.

MILLER, J.

The alleged libel: “She went to a prison for an operation. She sank so low. She said it cost five dollars, and that her screams were heard all over the block”—was contained in a report of a judicial proceeding published by the defendant. By mistake the word “prison” was substituted for “person.” The obvious meaning of the charge was that the plaintiff had submitted to a criminal operation, on account of which she had been sent to prison. The words used were libelous per se, and the defendant’s claim of privilege was not sustained by the proof.

The learned trial court dismissed the complaint upon ground that the plaintiff, having alleged a special meaning which the proof failed to establish, had precluded herself from insisting upon the natural meaning of the words used. Since this case was tried, however, the Court of Appeals has held that “when the plaintiff in an action of libel has, by innuendo, put a meaning upon the alleged libelous publication which is not supported by its language or by proof, the court may nevertheless submit the case to the jury, if the article is libelous per se.” Morrison v. Smith, 177 N. Y. 366, 69 N. E. 725,

The judgment and order must be reversed, and a new trial granted ; costs to abide the event. All concur.
Editorial Note on Part 3282
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3282 appear at 78 FR 60199, Oct. 1, 2013.

§ 3282.351 General. ( a ) This subpart sets out the requirements which must be met by States or private organizations which wish to qualify as primary inspection agencies under these regulations. It also sets out the various functions which will be carried out by primary inspection agencies.
( b ) There are four basic functions which are performed by primary inspection agencies: ( 1 ) Approval of the manufacturer's manufactured home design to assure that it is in compliance with the standard;
( 2 ) Approval of the manufacturer's quality control program to assure that it is compatible with the design;
( 3 ) Approval of the manufacturer's plant facility and manufacturing process to assure that the manufacturer can perform its approved quality control program and can produce manufactured homes in conformance with its approved design, and
( 4 ) Performance of ongoing inspections of the manufacturing process in each manufacturing plant to assure that the manufacturer is continuing to perform its approved quality control program and, with respect to those aspects of manufactured homes inspected, is continuing to produce manufactured homes in performance with its approved designs and in conformance with the standards (see § 3282.362(c)(1)).
( c ) There are two types of primary inspection agencies which perform these functions: ( 1 ) Those which approve designs and quality control programs (Design Approval Primary Inspection Agencies—DAPIAs) and
( 2 ) Those which approve plants and perform ongoing inspections in the manufacturing plants (Production Inspection Primary Inspection Agencies—IPIAs).
( d ) States and private organizations whose submissions under this subpart are acceptable shall be granted provisional acceptance. Final acceptance shall be conditioned upon adequate performance, which will be determined through monitoring of the actions of the primary inspection agencies. Monitoring of all primary inspection agencies shall be carried out as set out in subpart J. HUD accepted agencies can perform DAPIA functions for any manufacturer in any State and IPIA functions in any State except those in which the State has been approved to act as the exclusive IPIA under § 3282.352.
( e ) Primary inspection agencies approved under this subpart may contract with manufactured home manufacturers (see § 3282.202) to provide the services set out in this subpart. Any PIA which charges fees which are excessive in relation to the services rendered shall be subject to disqualification under § 3282.356.
### Archive of digital Boomer seismic reflection data collected during USGS Cruises 94CCT01 and 95CCT01, eastern Texas and western Louisiana, 1994 and 1995

By: Karynna CalderonShawn V. DadismanJack L. KindingerJames G. Flocks**Robert A. MortonDana S. Wiese

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ds93

#### Links

- More information:  **USGS Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

#### Study Area
### §392. Payments into reclamation fund of moneys received from entrymen and water right applicants

All moneys received from entrymen or applicants for water rights shall be paid into the reclamation fund.

(June 17, 1902, ch. 1093, §5, 32 Stat. 389.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section is comprised of fourth sentence of section 5 of act June 17, 1902. First, second and fifth sentences of such section 5 were classified to sections 439, 431 and 381 of this title, respectively; part of third sentence was classified to section 476 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.
```

[House Report 105-53]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

105th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                     105-53
_______________________________________________________________________

 
      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

                                _______
                                

   April 14, 1997.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

    Mr. Dreier, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 112]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 112, by a non-record vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

               brief summary of provisions of resolution

    The resolution provides that suspensions will be in order 
on Wednesday, April 16, 1997. It further provides that the 
Speaker or his designee will consult with the Minority Leader 
or his designee on any suspension considered under this 
resolution.
```
#### ROSE, Respondent, v. THOMAS, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 9, 1903.)

Action by John B. Rose against Hugh Thomas.

No opinion. Order affirmed on argument, with $10 costs and disbursements.
#### §§ 55.22-55.25 [Reserved]
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Solo Cup Company (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended January 1, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald L. Whaley, as Chief Operating Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | (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 operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Ronald L. Whaley   
|Ronald L. Whaley       
|Chief Operating Officer
|March 29, 2006