alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §411. Joinder of parties

(a) In any proceeding for the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter, whether such proceeding be instituted before the Commission or be begun originally in any district court of the United States, it shall be lawful to include as parties, in addition to the carrier, all persons interested in or affected by the charge, regulation, or practice under consideration, and inquiries, investigations, orders, and decrees may be made with reference to and against such additional parties in the same manner, to the same extent, and subject to the same provisions as are or shall be authorized by law with respect to carriers.

(b) In any suit for the enforcement of an order for the payment of money all parties in whose favor the Commission may have made an award for damages by a single order may be joined as plaintiffs, and all of the carriers parties to such order awarding such damages may be joined as defendants, and such suit may be maintained by such joint plaintiffs and against such joint defendants in any district where any one of such joint plaintiffs could maintain such suit against any one of such joint defendants; and service of process against any one of such defendants as may not be found in the district where the suit is brought may be made in any district where such defendant carrier has its principal operating office. In case of such joint suit, the recovery, if any, may be by judgment in favor of any one of such plaintiffs, against the defendant found to be liable to such plaintiff.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title IV, §411, 48 Stat. 1098.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (a), was in the original "this Act", meaning act June 19, 1934, ch. 652, 48 Stat. 1064, known as the Communications Act of 1934, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 609 of this title and Tables.
---

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Robert A. Morrison, President and director of HS3
Technologies Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of HS3 Technologies Inc.
      for the year ended June 30, 2009 (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 HS3 Technologies Inc.                                                           

Dated: September 18, 2009

/s/ Robert A. Morrison
  Robert A. MorrisonPresident and
Director(Principal Executive Officer)HS3 Technologies Inc.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to HS3 Technologies
Inc. and will be retained by HS3 Technologies Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-4780

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

FITZROY GUNTER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CR01-514-RDB)

Submitted: April 19, 2004 Decided: April 29, 2004

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Daniel W. Stiller, Assistant

Federal Public Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant.

Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, David I. Salem, Barbara

S. Skalla, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Fitzroy Gunter appeals his convictions for unlawful

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000), marijuana possession with intent to

distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and

aiding and abetting marijuana possession with intent to distribute,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2000).

On appeal, Gunter asserts the district court erred in

denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence,

based on the circumstances of his consent to the search. We review

a district court’s legal conclusions underlying a suppression

determination de novo, and its factual determinations for clear

error. United States v. Sterling, 283 F.3d 216, 218 (4th Cir.

2002). 

First, Gunter asserts his consent to the search of his

residence exposed him only to liability for violations of state

law, not federal law. This argument is meritless. See generally

United States v. Boone, 245 F.3d 352, 362 (4th Cir. 2001); see also

Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 251 (1991).

Second, Gunter asserts his consent resulted from a

custodial interrogation that took place before the police advised

him of his rights. The district court rejected Gunter’s assertion

based on testimony from the arresting police officer, and the

court’s credibility determination is not subject to appellate
- 3 -

review. See, e.g., United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067

(4th Cir. 1997).

Accordingly, we affirm Gunter’s convictions and sentence.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### §424c. Issuance of patents; recitals in patents; reservations

After the purchaser has paid to the United States all amounts due on the purchase price of said land, a patent shall issue which shall recite that the lands so patented have been classified in whole or in part as temporarily or permanently unproductive, as the case may be, under sections 423 to 423g and 610 of this title. Such patents shall also contain a reservation of a lien for water charges when deemed appropriate by the Secretary and reservations of coal or other mineral rights to the same extent as patents issued under the homestead laws.

(May 16, 1930, ch. 292, §4, 46 Stat. 367.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Sections 423 to 423g and 610 of this title, referred to in text, was in the original "the Adjustment Act of May 25, 1926", meaning act of May 25, 1926, ch. 383, 44 Stat. 636, which enacted sections 423 to 423g and 610 of this title. Section 610 of this title was omitted from the Code. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.
### §753. Implementation of policy

(a) The Secretary of Commerce shall—

(1) coordinate the activities of Federal agencies with responsibilities in the field of telecommunications (other than the Commission), so as to ensure that there is full and effective compliance with the provisions of this subchapter;

(2) omitted;

(3) exercise his authority in a manner which seeks to obtain coordinated and efficient use of the electromagnetic spectrum and orbital space, and to ensure the technical compatibility of the space segment with existing communications facilities in the United States and in foreign countries; and

(4) omitted.

(b) to (d) Omitted.

(Pub. L. 87–624, title V, §504, as added Pub. L. 95–564, Nov. 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 2394.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Subsecs. (a)(2), (4) and (c) of this section ceased to be effective Mar. 17, 2000, pursuant to section 765d(1) of this title. Subsec. (a)(2), (4) directed the Secretary of Commerce to ensure availability and utilization of the maritime satellite telecommunications services provided by INMARSAT for general governmental purposes and to determine the needs of users of the maritime satellite telecommunications system and to communicate that information to INMARSAT. Subsec. (c) assigned functions to the Commission.

Subsecs. (b) and (d) of this section ceased to be effective June 14, 2005, pursuant to section 765d(3) of this title. Subsec. (b) directed the President to supervise and issue instructions to the communications satellite corporation regarding activities with foreign governments, international entities, and INMARSAT. Subsec. (d) authorized the Federal Communications Commission to issue instructions to the corporation with respect to regulatory matters within the Commission's jurisdiction.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Kenneth G. Townsend, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of McNab Creek Gold Corp., certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of McNab Creek Gold Corp.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:



(a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c)

disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a)

all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.









July 14, 2005

/s/Kenneth G. Townsend



Date

Kenneth G. Townsend,

President, C.E.O. and C.F.O.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3356 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3356

  To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain drawback 
                 claims relating to petroleum products.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 19, 2005

Mr. Jefferson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain drawback 
                 claims relating to petroleum products.

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

SECTION 1. DRAWBACK CLAIMS RELATING TO PETROLEUM PRODUCTS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514) or any other provision of law, the Bureau of 
Customs and Border Protection shall, not later than 90 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, liquidate or reliquidate each 
drawback claim described in subsection (c) at the full amount in each 
such claim.
    (b) Payment of Amounts Due.--Any amounts owed by the United States 
pursuant to liquidations or reliquidations under subsection (a) shall 
be paid by the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection within 90 days 
after such liquidation or reliquidation.
    (c) Drawback Claims.--The drawback claims referred to in subsection 
(a) are the following:

 
 
 
Drawback Claim Number:              Filing Date:
  AA6/0304490-7...................  11/06/98
  AA6/0304381-8...................  10/12/98.

                                 <all>
```
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45948

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

JEFFREY ALLEN CADWALLADER

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Filed: January 14, 2019

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Peter G. Barton , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fourteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for grand theft, affirmed

.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lo ri A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Jeffrey Allen Cadwallader pled guilty to grand theft , Idaho Code §§ 18

- 2403(1), 18

-
2407(1)(b), 18

- 2409 . In exchange for his guilty plea, addition al charges were dismissed. The

district court imposed a unified sentence of fourteen years, with a minimum period of

confinement of two years

. Cadwallader appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial cour t’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-
15 (Ct. A pp. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.2 1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Cadwallader ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
#### Mason H. Crittenden and others *vs.*Dana White and others.

May 17, 1876.

State Cannot Regulate Sale of. Patent-rights. — If a patentee complies with the laws of congress on the subject, he has a right to sell his propert}' anywhere in the United States, and a state law attempting to regulate the sale of patent rights, granted pursuant to act of congress, is void.

Action on a promissory note, by endorsees, against the makers. Defence, that the note was given for part of the purchase-money upon a sale of a patent-right, and that the vendor (payee) had failed to comply with any of the provisions of Laws 1871, *c.*26. At the trial in the court of common pleas of Ramsey county, before *Brill,*J., evidence was received, under objection and exception, in support of *25this defence. The jury found for the defendants, a new trial was refused, and the plaintiffs appealed.

*W. K. Gaston*and *Geo. L. Otis,*for appellants.

*Smith & Egan,*for respondents.

Gileillan, G. J.

The only question in this case which it is necessary to consider is the validity of the ‘£ Act to regulate the sale of patent-rights, and prevent frauds in connection therewith,” passed March 6, 1871. Laws 1871, c. 26. This act requires of the owners of patent-rights the performance of certain acts before they can sell such rights within the state, and makes it a misdemeanor to sell such rights without having performed such acts. A similar law ■of the state of Indiana came before the United States circuit court, in the case *Ex parte Robinson,*2 Bissell, 309, and was held invalid for reasons so sound and conclusive that we need do nothing more than copy them from the report of the case: “It is clear that this kind of legislation is unauthorized. To congress is given, .by the constitution, the power to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by seeming for limited times, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. This power has been exercised by congress, which has directed the manner in which patents shall be •obtained, and, when obtained, how they shall be assigned and sold. The property in inventions exists by virtue of the laws of congress, and no state has a right to interfere with its enjoyment, or t.o annex conditions to the grant. If the patentee complies with the law of congress on the subject, he has a right to go into the open market, anywhere within the United States, and sell his property. If this were not so, it is easy to see that a state could impose terms which would result in a prohibition of the sale of this species of property within its borders, and in this way nullify the laws of congress which regulate its transfer, and ■destroy the power conferred upon congress by the constitution.”

*26The act referred to is invalid, and non-compliance with, its terms furnished no defence to the note in question.

Order reversed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          50,452
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  191,489
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    235,307
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               620,194
<PP&E>                                         186,494
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,040,315
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,968,631
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     20,318
<COMMON>                                       160,400
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,873,563
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,040,315
<SALES>                                        349,950
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               349,950
<CGS>                                          303,014
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  549,743
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              78,001
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,571,853)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,571,853)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,571,853)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.10)
        

</TABLE>
§ 266.515 Record retention. ( a ) *Loan origination and servicing.* Records pertaining to the mortgage loan origination and servicing of the loan must be maintained for as long as the insurance remains in force.
( b ) *Defaults and claims.* Records pertaining to a mortgage default and claim must be retained from the date of default through final settlement of the claim for a period of no less than three years after final settlement.
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.

§ 982.103 PHA application for funding. ( a ) A PHA must submit an application for program funding to HUD at the time and place and in the form required by HUD.
( b ) For competitive funding under a NOFA, the application must be submitted by a PHA in accordance with the requirements of the NOFA.
( c ) The application must include all information required by HUD. HUD requirements may be stated in the HUD-required form of application, the NOFA, or other HUD instructions.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2577-0169) [60 FR 34695, July 3, 1995, as amended at 60 FR 45661, Sept. 1, 1995; 63 FR 23859, Apr. 30, 1998. Redesignated at 64 FR 56887, Oct. 21, 1999; 80 FR 8246, Feb. 17, 2015]