alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 91.230 Monitoring.

The plan must describe the standards and procedures that the jurisdiction will use to monitor activities carried out in furtherance of the plan and will use to ensure long-term compliance with requirements of the programs involved, including civil rights related program requirements, minority business outreach, and the comprehensive planning requirements.

[85 FR 47909, Aug. 7, 2020]
#### KOMITSCH v. DE GROOT et al.

(Supreme Court,' Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 13, 1903.)

*1.*Bank Account — Conversations with Depositor — Admissibility.

In an action by IC. against the executor o£ D., to determine the ownership of a bank deposit in the names of “D. or IC.,” the testimony of a witness to conversations with D. relative to the bank account, which is already in evidence, is admissible.

Appeal from Kings County Court.

*971Action by Amelia Komitsch against William A. De Groot, as executor of Cornelius Dod, deceased, and another. From a judgment for defendants entered on a dismissal of the complaint on the merits, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, plaintiff appeals.

Reversed.

Argued before BARTLETT, JENKS, WOODWARD, HIRSCHBERG, and HOOKER, JJ.

Martin T. Manton, for appellant.

Edwin D. Kenyon, for respondent William A. De Groot.

JENKS, J.

This action is brought by Amelia Komitsch against the executor of Cornelius Dod, deceased, and the Greenpoint Savings Bank, to determine the ownership of money on deposit in said bank in the names of “Cornelius Dod or Amelia Komitsch.” The plaintiff called Lola Hodgdon as a witness, who testified that she knew Mr. Dod in his lifetime, and that they frequently exchanged visits. She was then asked this question:

> “Do you remember having any conversation with Mr. Dod in reference to this bank account? A. I do. (Objection on the ground that this conversation took place with the decedent without the authority, and in the absence, • of the adverse party. Objection sustained. Exception.) Q. Do you remember having a .conversation with Mr. Dod at your house? A. I do. (Objection on the same ground. Same ruling. Exception.) Q. Mrs. Hodgdon, do you remember having a conversation with him on Nassau about this account? A. I do. (Objection on same ground. Same ruling. Exception. On motion, answer ordered stricken out; also answer to prior questions. Mr. Mantón: I take an exception.)”

I am of opinion that the learned county court erred in its rulings upon the questions put to the witness Hodgdon. Hurlburt v. Hurlburt, 128 N. Y. 420, 28 N. E. 651, 26 Am. St. Rep. 482; Greenleaf on Evidence (15th Ed.) vol. 1, § 189. The learned counsel for the respondent now seeks to sustain the rulings on the ground that at the time the witness was interrogated there was no proof of any account as alleged in the complaint. But, as I read the record, an account had been read in evidence, and it was clear enough that it was the very account referred to in the complaint, although there were some trifling inaccuracies in description, amounts, and dates, which the learned court very properly corrected by subsequent amendment.The question put to the witness did not relate to the accuracy of the description of the account, but referred to the statements which the testator had made with reference thereto. As we cannot say that the exclusion was harmless, I advise that the judgment and order be reversed, and a new trial ordered.

Judgment and order of the county court of Kings county0 reversed, and new trial ordered; costs to abide the event. All concur.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 21, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40917

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CEDRIC DWAYNE MASON,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:03-CR-38-1-RC-WCR

--------------------

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Cedric Dwayne Mason appeals the sentence imposed following

his conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine

base. He contends that he should have received a reduction in

his offense level for acceptance of responsibility, even though

he was arrested for similar conduct while on bail for the instant

offense. He also failed to comply with other terms of pretrial

release, and he had to be arrested to compel his presence at

pretrial proceedings. 
No. 04-40917

-2-

Mason did not carry his burden of showing that the district

court committed clear error by refusing to reduce his sentence

for acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Flucas,

99 F.3d 177, 180 (5th Cir. 1996). The judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
Suggested changes to PGP 

Corell, Chuck [DNR] 

to: 

Jack Faulk 

01/20/2010 08:16 PM 

Show Details 

Chuck Corell, Chief

Water Quality Bureau

Iowa Department of Natural Resources

515.210.4517

 

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\jfaulk\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web4493.htm 5/11/2010
### §911. Regulations

The Secretary of the Interior shall prescribe such rules and regulations as will be necessary to the carrying out of the provisions of sections 908 to 910 of this title.

(June 25, 1910, ch. 406, §4, 36 Stat. 835.)
#### Manuel Ramos, Respondent, v. El Diario Publishing Company, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Order entered on February 28, 1962 granting plaintiff’s motion to strike affirmative defenses as legally insufficient pursuant to subdivision *9166 of rule 109 of the- Rules of Civil Practice unanimously affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $20 costs and disbursements to respondent. Leave is granted to defendants to replead the stricken defenses within 10 days after service of the order herein with notice of entry. The action is for libel. The first complete defense, although containing the necessary elements of the *“*fair comment ” defense, is so prolix and so burdened with irrelevant matter as to merit repleading. Since defendants will have to replead in any event, Special Term’s disposition in this respect should not be disturbed. The second-complete defense, alleging that the publication was a. fair and true report of a judicial or official proceeding is likewise insufficient since the allegedly libelous matter is not on its face confined to describing and characterizing actions occurring during any judicial or official proceeding (Civ. Prac. Act, § 337). The first and third partial defenses are also insufficient because they fail to define the sources upon which defendants relied in believing the alleged libel to be true (Civ. Prac. Act, § 338; *Meyers*v. *Huschle Bros.,*273 App. Div. 107, 109; *Aacon Contr. Co.*v. *Herrmann,*27 Misc 2d 197, 206-207 [Levy, M. M., J.]). It is essential that defendants’ sources be described with some particularity, since the nature of the sources may affect the sufficiency of the defenses. It is not enough to allege merely generally that there were trustworthy sources. The names of individuals who provided the information relied upon, although not essential, may properly be included in the pleading. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
<PAGE>   1


EXHIBIT - 11.01

STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE DATA

                         FIREARMS TRAINING SYSTEMS, INC.
          STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                                 (In thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    BASIC EARNINGS                        DILUTED EARNINGS
                                                       PER SHARE                             PER SHARE
                                                   NINE MONTHS ENDED                     NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                      DECEMBER 31,                          DECEMBER 31,
                                             ---------------------------           ---------------------------
                                                 2000               1999               2000               1999
                                             ---------------------------           ---------------------------
<S>                                          <C>                <C>                <C>                <C>
Weighted average common and common
   shares outstanding                          48,270             20,753             48,270             20,753

Shares issued upon assumed exercise
   of outstanding options                          --                 --                 --                 --
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted average common and common
   equivalent shares outstanding               48,270             20,753             48,270             20,753

Net income                                   $(15,342)          $ (6,574)          $(15,342)          $ (6,574)
                                             ========           ========           ========           ========

Earnings per share                           $  (0.32)          $  (0.32)          $  (0.32)          $  (0.32)
                                             ========           ========           ========           ========
</TABLE>




                                    Page 16
### §3308. Disposal of similar records where prior disposal was authorized

When it appears to the Archivist that an agency has in its custody, or is accumulating, records of the same form or character as those of the same agency previously authorized to be disposed of, he may empower the head of the agency to dispose of the records, after they have been in existence a specified period of time, in accordance with regulations promulgated under section 3302 of this title and without listing or scheduling them.

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1301; Pub. L. 91–287, §2(a), June 23, 1970, 84 Stat. 321; Pub. L. 98–497, title I, §107(b)(23), Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2290.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., §373 (July 7, 1943, ch. 192, §8, 57 Stat. 382; June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title I, §104(a), 63 Stat. 381).

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1984—Pub. L. 98–497 substituted "Archivist" for "Administrator of General Services".

1970—Pub. L. 91–287 struck out "by Congress" after "authorized".

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

#### Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–497 effective Apr. 1, 1985, see section 301 of Pub. L. 98–497, set out as a note under section 2102 of this title.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The Fulcrum Fund Limited
Partnership (the "Company") for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Kenneth A. Shewer, Chief Executive Officer of Kenmar Advisory
Corp., as the General Partner of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
               or Section 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 Company.


 By:     /s/ Kenneth A. Shewer
         -----------------------------------
 Name:   Kenneth A. Shewer
         Chief Executive Officer of Kenmar
         Advisory Corp.,
         General Partner of The Fulcrum Fund
         Limited Partnership


November 14, 2002

                                      E-1
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 327 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.327

                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
            the fourth day of January, two thousand and five

                                 An Act

 
  To allow binding arbitration clauses to be included in all contracts 
   affecting land within the Gila River Indian Community Reservation.

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

SECTION 1. BINDING ARBITRATION FOR GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY 
              RESERVATION CONTRACTS.

    (a) Amendments.--Subsection (f) of the first section of the Act of 
August 9, 1955 (25 U.S.C. 415(f)), is amended--
        (1) in the first sentence--
            (A) by striking ``Any lease'' and all that follows through 
        ``affecting land'' and inserting ``Any contract, including a 
        lease, affecting land''; and
            (B) by striking ``such lease or contract'' and inserting 
        ``such contract''; and
        (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``Such leases or 
    contracts entered into pursuant to such Acts'' and inserting ``Such 
    contracts''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect as if included in Public Law 107-159 (116 Stat. 122).

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### CHAMBERLAIN, Respondent, v. IBA, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 6, 1903.)

Action by Emily Chamberlain against Caspar Iba.

S. L. Samuels, for appellant. G. Putzel, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
§ 972.221 Timing of submission of conversion assessments to HUD. ( a ) *Submission with PHA Plan.* A PHA that wishes to convert a public housing development to tenant-based assistance must submit a conversion assessment to HUD with its next PHA Annual Plan.
( b ) *Updated conversion assessment.* Where a PHA proposes to convert a development to tenant-based assistance, it must submit an updated conversion assessment if the conversion assessment otherwise would be more than one year older than the conversion plan to be submitted to HUD. To update a conversion assessment, a PHA must ensure that the analysis of rental market conditions is based on the most recently available data, and must include any data that have changed since the initial conversion assessment. A PHA may submit the initial cost analysis and comparison of the market value of the public housing before and after rehabilitation and/or conversion if there is no reason to believe that such information has changed significantly.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7229

KEITH EARL GODWIN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-96-865-2)

Submitted: April 29, 1998 Decided: May 14, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith Earl Godwin, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. Godwin v. Angelone, No. CA-96-865-2 (E.D.

Va. Aug. 14, 1997). 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 the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of Sidney Amkraut, Petitioner, v. William S. Hults, as Commissioner of Motor Vehicles of the State of New York, Respondent.

Determination unanimously confirmed and the petition dismissed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Valente, J. P., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
<PAGE>


      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I,  Daniel  Black,  certify,  pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report  on  Form 10-QSB of Turbodyne Technologies, Inc. for the quarterly period
ended  June  30,  2002  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d)  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
in  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects
the  financial  condition  and  results of operations of Turbodyne, Technologies
Inc


                                        By:      /s/ Daniel Black
                                                 -------------------------------

                                        Name:    DANIEL BLACK

                                        Title:   Chief Executive Officer

                                        Date:    August 16, 2002



I,  Charles  Caverno,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly
Report  on  Form 10-QSB of Turbodyne Technologies, Inc. for the quarterly period
ended  June  30,  2002  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d)  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
in  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects
the  financial  condition  and  results of operations of Turbodyne Technologies,
Inc.

                                        By:      /s/ Charles Caverno
                                                 -------------------------------

                                        Name:    CHARLES CAVERNO

                                        Title:   Chief Financial Officer

                                        Date:    August 16, 2002
§ 964.425 Small public housing agencies. ( a ) *General.* The requirements of this subpart do not apply to any public housing agency that: ( 1 ) Has less than 300 public housing units (or has no public housing units):
( 2 ) Has provided reasonable notice to the resident advisory board of the opportunity for residents to serve on the governing board;
( 3 ) Has not been notified of the intention of any resident to participate on the governing board within a reasonable time (which shall not be less than 30 days) of the resident advisory board receiving the notice described in paragraph (a)(3) of this section; and
( 4 ) Repeats the requirements of paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section at least once every year.
( b ) *Public housing agencies that only administer Section 8 assistance.* A public housing agency that has no public housing units, but administers Section 8 tenant-based assistance, is eligible for the exception described in paragraph (a) of this section, regardless of the number of Section 8 vouchers it administers.
( c ) *Failure to meet requirements for exception.* A public housing agency that is otherwise eligible for the exception described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, but does not meet the three conditions described in paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(4) of this section, must comply with the requirements of this subpart.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3258 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3258

  To suspend temporarily the duty on biaxially oriented polyethylene 
                     terephthalate dielectric film.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 12, 2005

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To suspend temporarily the duty on biaxially oriented polyethylene 
                     terephthalate dielectric film.

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

SECTION 1. BIAXIALLY ORIENTED POLYETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATE DIELECTRIC 
              FILM.

    (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:

``      9902.08.24       Biaxially          Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         oriented                                                           31/2008
                         polyethylene
                         terephthalate
                         dielectric film
                         (CAS No. 25038-9-
                         9) (provided in
                         subheading
                         3920.20.20)......

    (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 the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```