alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §70031. Definitions

As used in subchapters I through III and this subchapter, unless the context otherwise requires:

(1) The term "marine environment" means—

(A) the navigable waters of the United States and the land and resources therein and thereunder;

(B) the waters and fishery resources of any area over which the United States asserts exclusive fishery management authority;

(C) the seabed and subsoil of the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States, the resources thereof, and the waters superjacent thereto; and

(D) the recreational, economic, and scenic values of such waters and resources.

(2) The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating, except that such term means the Secretary of Transportation with respect to the application of this chapter to the Saint Lawrence Seaway.

(3) The term "navigable waters of the United States" includes all waters of the territorial sea of the United States as described in Presidential Proclamation No. 5928 of December 27, 1988.

(Added Pub. L. 115–282, title IV, §401(a), Dec. 4, 2018, 132 Stat. 4261; amended Pub. L. 116–283, div. G, title LVXXXV [LXXXV], §8507(a)(4), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4753.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Presidential Proclamation No. 5928, referred to in par. (3), is set out under section 1331 of Title 43, Public Lands.

#### Amendments

2021—Pub. L. 116–283 substituted "I through III" for "A through C" in introductory provisions.
###### Editorial Note on Part 982

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 982 appear at 64 FR 26640, May 14, 1999, and at 89 FR 38293, May 7, 2024.

#### § 982.611 Group home: Lease and HAP contract.

For assistance in a group home, there is a separate HAP contract and lease for each assisted person.
****
6.  Grand Challenge Applications

 A key goal of the HPCC Program is to demonstrate the use of high  performance computing and communications technologies to  discover new knowledge and illustrate new capabilities that were  not possible with earlier technologies.  The Program has conducted  R&D in Grand Challenge applications, which are fundamental  problems in science and engineering with broad economic and  scientific impact whose solution can be advanced by applying HPCC  technologies.  In addition to scientific importance, selection  criteria included potential for cost sharing with sources directly  concerned with the specific applications and the potential for  leveraging across disciplines. 
A common feature of many of these Grand Challenges is that they  involve simulation.  In part because of HPCC technologies,  simulation has become recognized as the third paradigm of science,  the first two being experimentation and theory.  In some cases it is  the only approach available for further advancing knowledge -- experiments may not be possible due to size (very big or very small),  speed (very fast or very slow), distance (very far away), dangers to  health and safety (toxic or explosive), or the economics of  conducting the experiments.  In simulations, mathematical models of  physical phenomena are translated into computer software that  specifies how calculations are performed using input data that may  include both experimental data and estimated values of unknown  parameters in the mathematical models.  By repeatedly running the  software using different data and different parameter values, an  understanding of the phenomenon of interest emerges.  The realism  of these simulations and the speed with which they are produced  affect the accuracy of this understanding and its usefulness in  predicting change. 
Due to limitations such as speed and memory in computing systems  available at the beginning of the HPCC Program, many simulations  could not be completed with sufficient accuracy and timeliness to  be of interest.  Through efforts requiring collaboration among  computer scientists, mathematicians, computational scientists, and  subject matter specialists, these limitations are being removed.  In  particular over the past year many Grand Challenge teams have  reported advances that have been the result of faster run times,  larger memory, higher resolution and more realistic modeling.   Several dozen Grand Challenge applications projects and Grand- Challenge-scale applications are now described.  Many of these  involve multi-agency cooperation and support,  In particular, all of  the NSF Grand Challenges described are also supported by ARPA.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-02-00703-CR

Daniel Thomas Sandoval, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 403RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 3012045, HONORABLE TOM BLACKWELL, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A jury convicted appellant Daniel Thomas Sandoval of burglary of a habitation. Tex.

Pen. Code Ann. § 30.02 (West 2003). The district court imposed punishment at twenty years’

imprisonment.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573

S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);

Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1969). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant, who was advised of his

right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.
2

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel’s

motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

 

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Patterson

Affirmed

Filed: July 24, 2003

Do Not Publish
### §315m–2. Administration of leased lands

The lands leased under sections 315m–1 to 315m–4 of this title shall be administered under the provisions of the Act of June 28, 1934 (48 Stat. 1269), as amended June 26, 1936 (49 Stat. 1976), commonly known as the Taylor Grazing Act.

(June 23, 1938, ch. 603, §2, 52 Stat. 1033.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Act of June 28, 1934 (48 Stat. 1269), as amended June 26, 1936 (49 Stat. 1976), referred to in text, is act June 28, 1934, ch. 865, 48 Stat. 1269, known as the Taylor Grazing Act, which is classified principally to this subchapter (§315 et seq.). For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 315 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as a part of act June 28, 1934, known as the Taylor Grazing Act, which comprises this subchapter.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of CFO Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of JER Investors Trust Inc. (the
Company) for the annual period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), J. Michael McGillis, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

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

2. The information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |                         |  |                                            
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------
|                     |  | /s/ J. MICHAEL MCGILLIS
|Date: March 31, 2008 |  | Name: Title:            |  | J. Michael McGillis Chief Financial
Officer
### §55303. Motor vehicles owned by United States Government personnel

Notwithstanding any other law, privately-owned American shipping services may be used to transport motor vehicles owned by personnel of the United States Government whenever transportation of those vehicles at Government expense is otherwise authorized by law.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §8(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1642.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 55303 | 46 App.:1241(c). | June 29, 1936, ch. 858, title IX, §901(c), as added May 28, 1956, ch. 325, 70 Stat. 187. |

Section
### §29. Master of offending vessel punishable

When an offense against this chapter shall have been committed by means of a vessel, or of any boat belonging to a vessel, the master of such vessel shall, unless some other person is shown to have been in charge of and navigating such vessel or boat, be deemed to have been in charge of and navigating the same, and be liable to be punished accordingly.

(Feb. 29, 1888, ch. 17, §9, 25 Stat. 42.)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001021810
<NAME>                        INTELIDATA TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S.
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                         1
<CASH>                             12,842
<SECURITIES>                       11,412
<RECEIVABLES>                      20,136
<ALLOWANCES>                       (1,323)
<INVENTORY>                        30,646
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   75,323
<PP&E>                             11,160
<DEPRECIATION>                     (4,084)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    134,245
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              12,470
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                               32
<OTHER-SE>                        121,743
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      134,245
<SALES>                            30,683
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   38,427
<CGS>                              21,834
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      26,147
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   17,661
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       25
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     11
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (2,629)
<INCOME-TAX>                           43
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (2,672)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                       (2,672)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (0.08)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
10.7


 


FOURTH
AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT OF SALE AND PURCHASE


 


THIS
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT OF SALE AND PURCHASE (this “Fourth Amendment”) is made as of October 21, 2022, by and
between AIM IMMUNOTECH INC., a Delaware corporation (“Seller”), ACELLORIES, INC., a New York corporation (“Original
Buyer”), and BH 783 JERSEY AVE, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company (“New Buyer”).


 


WHEREAS,
Seller and Original Buyer have executed that certain Agreement of Sale and Purchase dated March 3, 2022, as amended by a First Amendment
to Agreement of Sale and Purchase dated June 27, 2022, a Second Amendment to Agreement of Sale and Purchase dated August 2, 2022 and
a Third Amendment to Agreement of Sale and Purchase dated August 31, 2022 (collectively, the “Purchase Agreement”)
for the purchase of certain Property, as defined in the Purchase Agreement, situate in the City of Brunswick, Middlesex County, New Jersey
and commonly known as 783 Jersey Avenue (“Property”); and


 


WHEREAS,
Seller, Original Buyer and New Buyer now desire to make certain amendments to the Purchase Agreement, upon and subject to the terms and
conditions of this Fourth Amendment.


 


NOW
THEREFORE, the parties hereto, in consideration of the mutual promises hereinafter set forth, and intending to be legally bound, hereby
agree as follows:


 


1.
New Buyer is hereby substituted for Original Buyer under the Purchase Agreement in all respects, and all references to “Buyer”
in the Purchase Agreement shall mean and refer to New Buyer.


 


2.
New Buyer acknowledges and reaffirms that it is purchasing the Property on a strictly “AS IS” basis as set forth in Section
11 of the Purchase Agreement.


 


3.
All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Purchase Agreement. This Fourth Amendment
may be signed in counterpart(s). For purposes of this Fourth Amendment, facsimile or electronic signatures shall constitute original
signatures. The transmission of a signed counterpart of this Fourth Amendment by electronic signature, facsimile or by portable document
file shall have the same force and effect as delivery of an original signed counterpart of this Fourth Amendment, and shall constitute
valid and effective delivery for all purposes. Except as expressly modified hereby, and in all respects, the remainder of the Purchase
Agreement is hereby ratified and shall continue in full force and effect without modification.


 


[Signatures
on Following Page]


 




    	 



     


    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Fourth Amendment to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written.


 


	 	Seller:
	 	 
	 	AIM
    IMMUNOTECH INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 /s/
    Peter W. Rodino 
	 	Name:	Peter
    W. Rodino
	 	Title:	C.O.O.
	 	 	 
	 	Original
    Buyer:
	 	 
	 	ACELLORIES,
    INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 /s/
    Albert Lalou 
	 	Name:	Albert
    Lalou
	 	Title:	V.P.
	 	 	 
	 	New
    Buyer:
	 	 
	 	BH
    783 JERSEY AVE, LLC
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 /s/
                                            Albert Lalou 

	 	Name:	Albert
    Lalou
	 	Title:	Managing
    Member


 




    	-2-
#### LANGLEY v. WESTCHESTER TRUST CO. et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April Term, 1903.)

Action by Edward D. W. Langley, individually and as administrator with the will annexed of Frances A. Skinner, deceased, against the Westchester Trust Company and others.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment (80 N. Y. Supp. 959) affirmed, with costs. See memorandum.

VAN BRUNT, P. J., and LAUGHLIN, J., dissent.
### §729. Repealed. June 14, 1926, ch. 578, §5, as added June 4, 1954, ch. 263, 68 Stat. 175

Section, act Sept. 30, 1890, ch. 1121, 26 Stat. 502, authorized, with limitations, the sale of unreserved public lands to incorporated cities and towns for cemetery and park purposes. See section 869 et seq. of this title.

Act Oct. 17, 1940, ch. 890, §2, 54 Stat. 1192, formerly set out as a note under this section, declared this section to be inapplicable to the Territory of Alaska, and was repealed by act June 14, 1926, ch. 578, §5, as added by act June 4, 1954, ch. 263, 68 Stat. 175. See section 869 et seq. of this title.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Bray, Annunziata and Overton 

WOODWARD & LOTHROP 

AND 

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 2752-95-4 PER CURIAM 

 MAY 14, 1996 

SCOTT WAYNE TALBOTT 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' 

COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (M. Lynn McHale; Siciliano, Ellis, Dyer & Boccarosse, 

on brief), for appellants. 

 (Metin A. Cay; Swiger & Cay, on brief), for appellee. 

 Woodward & Lothrop and its insurer (hereinafter collectively 

referred to as "employer") contend that the Workers' Compensation 

Commission erred in finding that Scott Wayne Talbott ("claimant") 

proved that back fusion surgery to be performed by Dr. Paul 

Griffith was reasonable and necessary treatment of claimant's 

compensable injury by accident. Upon reviewing the record and 

the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is 

without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission's 

decision. Rule 5A:27. 

 On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the prevailing party below. R.G. Moore Bldg. Corp. v. 

Mullins, 10 Va. App. 211, 212, 390 S.E.2d 788, 788 (1990). 

Factual findings made by the commission will be upheld on appeal 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

if supported by credible evidence. James v. Capitol Steel 

Constr. Co., 8 Va. App. 512, 515, 382 S.E.2d 487, 488 (1989). "A 

question raised by conflicting medical opinion is a question of 

fact." Commonwealth v. Powell, 2 Va. App. 712, 714, 347 S.E.2d 

532, 533 (1986). 

 In its role as fact finder, the commission was entitled to 

accept the opinions of Drs. Griffith, Eli M. Lippman, and Mark S. 

Rosenthal that the fusion surgery was reasonable and necessary, 

and to reject the contrary opinions of Drs. Neil Kahanovitz, 

Richard S. Materson, and John B. Cohen. The opinions of Drs. 

Griffith, Lippman, and Rosenthal constitute credible evidence to 

support the commission's decision. The existence of "contrary 

evidence in the record is of no consequence if there is credible 

evidence to support the commission's finding." Wagner Enters., 

Inc. v. Brooks, 12 Va. App. 890, 894, 407 S.E.2d 32, 35 (1991). 

 We find no merit in employer's argument that the commission 

erred in not giving more weight to the opinion of Dr. Kahanovitz, 

a treating physician. The record showed that Dr. Griffith, who 

unequivocally recommended that claimant undergo the surgery, had 

treated claimant since his December 1990 accident. Dr. 

Kahanovitz did not begin treating claimant until May 1992. Drs. 

Lippman and Rosenthal had also treated and examined claimant in 

arriving at their conclusions. 

 For these reasons, we affirm the commission's decision. 

 Affirmed.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-12-00213-CV

JUDYTH T. GONZALEZ,

Appellant

v.

CHARLES RENE OCHOA, II,

Appellee

From the 378th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 81785D

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Judyth T. Gonzalez appeals the trial court’s enforcement order in an underlying 

divorce proceeding. Gonzalez’ docketing statement was due July 17, 2012. It was not 

received. By letter dated July 30, 2012, the Clerk of this Court notified Gonzalez that the 

docketing statement had not been filed and must be filed within 21 days from the date 

of the letter. No docketing statement was received. By letter dated August 28, 2012, the 

Clerk of this Court again notified Gonzalez that the docketing statement had not been 

filed and warned Gonzalez that if the docketing statement was not filed within 14 days 
Gonzalez v. Ochoa Page 2

from the date of the letter, the appeal would be dismissed. More than 14 days have 

passed and no docketing statement has been received.

This appeal is dismissed. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b), (c).

Absent a specific exemption, the Clerk of the Court must collect filing fees at the 

time a document is presented for filing. TEX. R. APP. P. 12.1(b); Appendix to TEX. R. APP.

P., Order Regarding Fees (Amended Aug. 28, 2007, eff. Sept. 1, 2007). See also TEX. R.

APP. P. 5; 10TH TEX. APP. (WACO) LOC. R. 5; TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 51.207(b); 51.208 

(West Supp. 2012); § 51.941(a) (West 2005). Under these circumstances, we suspend the 

rule and order the Clerk to write off all unpaid filing fees in this case. TEX. R. APP. P. 2. 

The write-off of the fees from the accounts receivable of the Court in no way eliminates 

or reduces the fees owed.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Judge Harrison1

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed September 27, 2012

[CV06]

 

1 Glen Harrison, Judge of the 32nd District Court of Nolan County, sitting by assignment of the Chief 

Justice of the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to section 74.003(h) of the Government Code. See TEX. GOV'T 

CODE ANN. § 74.003(h) (West 2005).
§ 91.200 General. ( a ) A complete consolidated plan consists of the information required in § 91.200 through § 91.230, submitted in accordance with instructions prescribed by HUD (including tables and narratives), or in such other format as jointly agreed upon by HUD and the jurisdiction. A comprehensive housing affordability strategy consists of the information required in § 91.200 through § 91.215(e), § 91.215(h) through § 91.215(l), § 91.220(c), § 91.220(g), § 91.225 and § 91.230.
( b ) The jurisdiction shall describe: ( 1 ) The lead agency or entity responsible for overseeing the development of the plan and the significant aspects of the process by which the consolidated plan was developed;
( 2 ) The identity of the agencies, groups, organizations, and others who participated in the process; and
( 3 ) A jurisdiction's consultations with: ( i ) The Continuum of Care that serves the jurisdiction's geographic area;
( ii ) Public and private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, or education needs of low-income individuals and families, of homeless individuals and families, of youth, and/or of other persons with special needs;
( iii ) Publicly funded institutions and systems of care that may discharge persons into homelessness (such as health-care facilities, mental health facilities, foster care and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions);
( iv ) Commencing with consolidated plans submitted on or after January 1, 2018, public and private organizations, including broadband internet service providers and organizations engaged in narrowing the digital divide;
( v ) Commencing with consolidated plans submitted on or after January 1, 2018, agencies whose primary responsibilities include the management of flood prone areas, public land or water resources, and emergency management agencies; and
( vi ) Other entities.
( c ) In order to facilitate citizen review and comment each year, the plan shall contain a concise executive summary that includes the objectives and outcomes identified in the plan as well as an evaluation of past performance. The plan shall also include a concise summary of the citizen participation process, public comments, and efforts made to broaden public participation in the development of the consolidated plan.
[71 FR 6963, Feb. 9, 2006, as amended at 76 FR 75968, Dec. 5, 2011; 81 FR 91011, Dec. 16, 2016]
H. R. 3368

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and six 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6483 Lincoln 

Street in Gagetown, Michigan, as the ‘‘Gagetown Veterans Memorial Post Office’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

6483 Lincoln Street in Gagetown, Michigan, shall be known and 

designated as the ‘‘Gagetown Veterans Memorial Post Office’’. 

SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 

or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Gagetown 

Veterans Memorial Post Office’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.