alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gerald Gordon, Appellant.

-In a *coram nobis*proceeding, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 19, 1963, which denied without a hearing his application to vacate a judgment of the former County Court, Kings County, rendered April 19, 1958 after a jury trial, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, petit larceny and assault in the second degree, and imposing sentence upon him as a second felony offender. The judgment of conviction was previously affirmed by this court *(People*v. *Gordon,*8 A D 2d 835, affd. 7 N Y 2d 942; see, also, *People*v. *Pariser,*8 A D 2d 825, affd. 7 N Y 2d 779). Order reversed on the law and the facts, and matter remitted to the Criminal Term, Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing and for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Prior to the defendant’s arrest, a hearing took place in the former Magistrates’ Court of the City of New York, in which two other accused men were the defendants. The minutes of such hearing demonstrate that there was a question concerning the “ operability ” *829of a weapon used in the commission of the crime. At the defendant’s trial the prosecutor apparently claimed that he (the prosecutor) had a gun which was'used in the robbery; however, he never produced it and failed to make known to the defense or to the jury the facts as to the question concerning the condition of the gun. The suppression of those facts is now proffered as the basis for relief on this *coram nobis*application. It further appears that the charge to the jury limited them to a consideration solely of robbery in the first degree under subdivision 1 of section 2124 of the Penal Law (armed with a dangerous weapon). A conviction for robbery in the first degree cannot be supported under that subdivision where the weapon in question is inoperable and it is not shown that it was used as a club or in some other manner that would qualify it as a “ dangerous weapon” *(People*v. *Dade,*15 A D 2d 629; *People*V. *King,*13 A D 2d 997). There are issues of fact concerning the operability of the gun and the treatment of the question in the prosecution against the defendant here, which have not been refuted by unquestionable documentary proof. Under the circumstances, a hearing should be held and a decision made on the basis of all the proof which may be adduced *(People*v. *Langan,*303 N. Y. 474; *People*v. *Bichetti,*302 N. Y. 290). Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Rabin, JJ., concur.
```

[110th Congress Public Law 98]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ098.110]

[[Page 121 STAT. 1014]]

Public Law 110-98
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
   69 Montgomery Street in Jersey City, New Jersey, as the ``Frank J. 
 Guarini Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Oct. 24, 2007 -  [H.R. 2467]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FRANK J. GUARINI POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 69 Montgomery Street in Jersey City, New Jersey, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Frank J. Guarini Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Frank J. 
Guarini Post Office Building''.

    Approved October 24, 2007.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2467:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007):
            Sept. 10, considered and passed House.
            Oct. 3, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
§ 904.304 Functions of the HBA. ( a ) Subject to possible variations agreed to by the HBA and approved by HUD, the functions of the HBA shall include the following: ( 1 ) Representing its members, individually and collectively, with respect to any deficiencies in the development or in the homes and with respect to fulfillment of the construction contract and related warranties;
( 2 ) Representing its members, individually and collectively, in their relationships with the LHA and others in regard to financial matters such as monthly payments, credits to and charges against reserves, settlement upon vacating the home, acquisition of ownership, and other matters pertaining to operation and management of the development;
( 3 ) Recommending policies and rules to the LHA for operation and management including rules concerning use of the common areas and community facilities;
( 4 ) Participating in the operation of official grievance mechanisms;
( 5 ) Advising and assisting its members regarding procedures and practices relative to the Earned Home Payments Account and the acquisition of homeownership;
( 6 ) Participating with the LHA in periodic maintenance inspections of homes after occupancy, and making recommendations in case of disagreements arising out of maintenance inspections;
( 7 ) Participating with the LHA in the selection of subsequent homebuyers;
( 8 ) Coordinating, supervising, or managing the operation of credit union, child care, or other supportive services established for the development;
( 9 ) Participating with the LHA in the establishment and implementation of policies related to collection of monthly payments, termination of occupancy, and resolution of hardship situations; and
( 10 ) Performing management services as specified under contract with the Authority or with the Homeowners Association and participating in other activities pursuant to agreement with the LHA or with the Homeowners Association.
( b ) In addition, the HBA may offer such special services as the following: ( 1 ) The development of self-help such as consumer clubs, furniture and other co-ops, credit unions, transportation pools, and skill pools;
( 2 ) Assisting homebuyers in acquiring group insurance;
( 3 ) Developing programs and contracting for services such as child care centers to be located in the community facility where such a facility exists;
( 4 ) Assisting homebuyers in their employment, especially by participating in skill development and apprenticeship programs in cooperation with local educational organizations;
( 5 ) Assisting homebuyers in planning the management role of the HBA and in negotiating any contract for management services with the LHA.
### §1501. Definitions

As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires—

"document" means a Presidential proclamation or Executive order and an order, regulation, rule, certificate, code of fair competition, license, notice, or similar instrument, issued, prescribed, or promulgated by a Federal agency;

"Federal agency" or "agency" means the President of the United States, or an executive department, independent board, establishment, bureau, agency, institution, commission, or separate office of the administrative branch of the Government of the United States but not the legislative or judicial branches of the Government;

"person" means an individual, partnership, association, or corporation; and

"National Archives of the United States" has the same meaning as in section 2901(11) of this title.

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1273; Pub. L. 98–497, title I, §107(b)(2), Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2286.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., §304 (July 26, 1935, ch. 417, §4, 49 Stat. 501).

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1984—Pub. L. 98–497 inserted definition of "National Archives of the United States".

#### **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.
Exhibit 4.16.1

SCHEDULE OF INTRA-GROUP MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN CERTAIN PRC SUBSIDIARIES OF SOUFUN HOLDINGS LIMITED AND A CONSOLIDATED CONTROLLED ENTITY



|   |  |                    |  |                                             |  |                                                            
|-- |  | ------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------
|   |  | Date of
Memorandum |  | Party A                                     |  | Party B                                                    
|1. |  | February 15, 2008  |  | Beijing SouFun Network Technology Co., Ltd. |  | Shanghai China Index Consultancy Co., Ltd.                 
|2. |  | February 15, 2008  |  | Beijing SouFun Network Technology Co., Ltd. |  | Shanghai SouFun Advertising Co., Ltd.                      
|3. |  | February 15, 2008  |  | Beijing SouFun Network Technology Co., Ltd. |  | Beijing China Index Information Co., Ltd.                  
|4. |  | February 15, 2008  |  | Beijing SouFun Network Technology Co., Ltd. |  | Beijing SouFun Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd.
|5. |  | February 15, 2008  |  | Beijing SouFun Network Technology Co., Ltd. |  | Tianjin Jia Tian Xia Advertising Co., Ltd.                 
|6. |  | February 15, 2008  |  | Beijing SouFun Network Technology Co., Ltd. |  | Shanghai Jia Biao Tang Real Estate Broking Co., Ltd.       
|7. |  | February 15, 2008  |  | Beijing SouFun Network Technology Co., Ltd. |  | Beijing SouFun Internet Information Service Co., Ltd.      



1
### §14701. General violation

The owner, charterer, managing operator, agent, master, and individual in charge of a vessel violating this part or a regulation prescribed under this part are each liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $20,000. Each day of a continuing violation is a separate violation. The vessel also is liable in rem for the penalty.

(Pub. L. 99–509, title V, §5101(3), Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1925.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

#### Revised section 14701

Source: Section (U.S. Code) 46 App. U.S.C. 83j.

Section 14701 provides that the owner, charterer, managing operator, agent, master, and individual in charge of a vessel violating Part J—Measurement of Vessels—are each liable to the U.S. Government for a civil penalty of not more than $20,000. It also provides that the vessel is liable in rem for the penalty and that each day of a continuing violation is a separate violation.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

135925 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. SOUTH MACOMB DISPO SAL AUTHORITY, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices

v SC: 135925 COA: 280209 Macomb CC: 2004-004406-CZ DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY and BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT BOARD, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 18, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

t0519 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 27, 2008

Clerk
Exhibit 32.1





18 U.S.C. Section 1350 Certification





In connection with the Annual Report of NGP Capital Resources Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen K. Gardner, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





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





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





March 11, 2011





/s/ STEPHEN K. GARDNERStephen K. Gardner,President and Chief Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to NGP Capital Resources Company and will be retained by NGP Capital Resources Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### §1004. Systems security and integrity

A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization and with the affirmative intervention of an individual officer or employee of the carrier acting in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Commission.

(Pub. L. 103–414, title I, §105, Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4283.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective on the date that is 4 years after Oct. 25, 1994, see section 111(b) of Pub. L. 103–414, set out as a note under section 1001 of this title.
### §344. Repealed. Pub. L. 117–58, div. F, title VI, §60602(b), Nov. 15, 2021, 135 Stat. 1249

Section, act June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title III, §344, as added and amended Pub. L. 117–58, div. F, title VI, §60602, Nov. 15, 2021, 135 Stat. 1246, established a telecommunications interagency working group to develop recommendations to address the workforce needs of the telecommunications industry and required a report containing its recommendations to be submitted to Congress no later than 1 year after the date on which the working group was established.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 117–58, div. F, title VI, §60602(b), Nov. 15, 2021, 135 Stat. 1249, provided that: "Section 344 of the Communications Act of 1934 [47 U.S.C. 344], as added by subsection (a), shall be repealed on the day after the date on which the interagency working group established under subsection (b)(1) of that section [working group established Jan. 14, 2022] submits the report to Congress under subsection (g) of that section [report submitted Jan. 13, 2023]."
Appendix F

MOVES Modeling 

Documentation and IAC 

minutes 

(MOVES files located on included disk) 

ADEM:

 Tracy Anderson 

; Lisa Cole 

; Anthony Smiley 

; Lisa Hicks 

 Dale Hurst 

; Amanda Carter 

; Sabrina Blakely 

 Marcelle McCloud 

; Chris Howard 

; Justin Hogan 

; Jaraux Washington 

 Tim Martin 

ALDOT:

; Natasha Clay 

; Alfedo Acoff 

 Lance Taylor 

 Jim Doolin 

 Bill Couch 

 Sandra Bonner 

; Victor Jordan 

; Brian Fair 

; Kimberly Holman 

JCDH:

; Jason Howanitz 

; Matt Lacke 

 Sam Bell 

 Dave Wootton 

RPCGB:

; Scott Tillman 

; Harry He 

; Darrell Howard 

 Mike Kaczorowski 

FHWA-AL:

 David Harris 

 Lynne Urquhart 

; Clint Andrew 

; Shaun Capps 

U.S. EPA Region 4:

 Amanetta Somerville 

; Lynorae Benjamin 

; Dianna Smith 

; Royce Dansby - Sparks 

BJCTA:

 Peter Behrman 

 

Interagency Consultation 

Alabama Transportation Conformity ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Friday, February 25, 2011 

9:00a.m. – 10:00a.m. CST 

1-866-299-3188 

Conference code 4045629207#. 

----------------------------------------------AGENDA---------------------------------------------------- 

------------------------------------DISCUSSION SUMMARY------------------------------- 

1. Introductions 

2. Discussion of the Mobile Source Emissions Budget for the 

Annual 2.5 PM Redesignation Budget- ADEM

Ms. Lisa Cole with ADEM discussed the proposed Motor Vehicle 

Emission Budget (MVEB) for the Annual PM2.5 Maintenance Plan. 

The budget for NOx is 15,982 tons per year and the budget PM2.5 is 

442 tons per year. ALDOT, JCDH, RPCGB, the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) and EPA all gave their approvals for the 

proposed budgets. Ms. Cole then discussed the proposed MVEB 

revisions for the 24 hour PM2.5 Maintenance Plan. The budget for 

NOx is 48.41 tons per year and the budget for PM2.5 is 1.21 tons per 

year. ALDOT, JCDH, RPCGB, FHWA, and EPA all gave their 

approvals for the proposed budgets. 

3. Open Discussion 

Mr. Darrell Howard with RPCGB would like to see if their TIP 

program is eligible for CMAQ funding. FHWA believes it is eligible 

but will have to take a look at the application and discuss with Mr. 

Dave Harris of FHWA. 

The next IAC call is scheduled for March 21, 2011.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME OF
COMPUTERIZED THERMAL IMAGING, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>   0001021853
<NAME>  COMPUTERIZED THERMAL IMAGING, INC. & SUBSIDIARIES

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                    4,677,144
<SECURITIES>                             27,119,827
<RECEIVABLES>                                59,221
<ALLOWANCES>                                  4,600
<INVENTORY>                                 360,307
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         33,008,458
<PP&E>                                    1,200,496
<DEPRECIATION>                              246,755
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           48,125,807
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     2,830,187
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                     80,472
<OTHER-SE>                               45,215,148
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             48,125,807
<SALES>                                      79,665
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            699,059
<CGS>                                        43,019
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             4,059,136
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (3,360,077)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (3,360,077)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                    60,001
<NET-INCOME>                            (3,300,076)
<EPS-BASIC>                                (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (0.04)






</TABLE>
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 10

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900

Seattle, WA 98101-3140

OFFICE OF

AIR, WASTE AND TOXICS

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Background and Discussion of Potential Redesignation of the Tacoma-Pierce

County Fine Particulate Matter Area to Attainment.

FROM: Jeff Hunt, Air Quality Planner

THRU: Debra Suzuki, Air Programs Unit Manager

TO: Docket File

On September 11, 2014, Nancy Helm, Tribal Air Team Lead, and I held a teleconference with

Mary Basballe, Air Quality Manager for the Puyallup Tribe of Indians. We discussed the

requirements and implications of redesignating the Tacoma-Pierce County fine particulate

(PM2 .s) matter area to attainment status. Mary expressed support for our proposed course of

action and would let us know if there were any further concerns on behalf of the Puyallup Tribe.

During our conversation Mary raised two issues relevant to the Tacoma-Pierce County area

redesignation. First, Mary described the rationale for discontinuing the PM 2.5 monitor located on

tribal land in the area, scheduled for discontinuation on September 30, 2014. We agreed with

Mary's perspective, noting the historically low PM2.s levels monitored in the area. Second, Mary

pointed out a recent example of Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) issuing a burn ban

notice of violation on tribal trust land. I confirmed with PSCAA that the notice of violation was

issued inadvertently and they are taking steps to improve the accuracy of their address list. On

October 2, 2014, the Puyallup Tribe and PSCAA held a teleconference and successfully resolved

this issue.

Lastly, Mary asked if it was necessary to formally send a letter requesting redesignation of the

tribal trust land on behalf of the Puyallup Tribe. I noted that the EPA often appreciates a letter of

support, but a formal letter is not necessary. I also noted that I would record our conversation as

a memo to the docket file which could serve as documentation of the Puyallup Tribe's support

for redesignating the area to attainment if there were no further issues to discuss.

K,,hl \id-
#### § 60.118 Applications and proposals lacking definite plans for involvement of human subjects.

Certain types of applications for grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts are submitted to Federal departments or agencies with the knowledge that subjects may be involved within the period of support, but definite plans would not normally be set forth in the application or proposal. These include activities such as institutional type grants when selection of specific projects is the institution's responsibility; research training grants in which the activities involving subjects remain to be selected; and projects in which human subjects' involvement will depend upon completion of instruments, prior animal studies, or purification of compounds. Except for research waived under § 60.101(i) or exempted under § 60.104, no human subjects may be involved in any project supported by these awards until the project has been reviewed and approved by the IRB, as provided in this policy, and certification submitted, by the institution, to the Federal department or agency component supporting the research.
### §25. Fishing vessels; duty to keep nets from cables

The master of any fishing vessel who shall not keep his implements or nets at a distance of at least one nautical mile from a vessel engaged in laying or repairing a cable; or the master of any fishing vessel who shall not keep his implements or nets at a distance of at least a quarter of a nautical mile from a buoy or buoys intended to mark the position of a cable when being laid or when out of order or broken, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten days, or to a fine not exceeding $250, or to both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court. Fishing vessels, on perceiving or being able to perceive the said signals displayed on a telegraph ship, shall be allowed such time as may be necessary to obey the notice thus given, not exceeding twenty-four hours, during which period no obstacle shall be placed in the way of their operations.

(Feb. 29, 1888, ch. 17, §5, 25 Stat. 42.)
#### § 965.601 Physical condition standards; physical inspection requirements.

Housing owned or leased by a PHA, and public housing owned by another entity approved by HUD, must be maintained in accordance with the physical condition standards in 24 CFR part 5, subpart G. For each PHA, HUD will perform an independent physical inspection of a statistically valid sample of such housing based upon the physical condition standards in 24 CFR part 5, subpart G.

[63 FR 46580, Sept. 1, 1998]