alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §30707. Criminal penalty

(a) In General.—A carrier that violates this chapter shall be fined under title 18.

(b) Lien.—The amount of the fine and costs for the violation constitute a lien on the vessel engaged in the carriage. A civil action in rem to enforce the lien may be brought in the district court of the United States for any district in which the vessel is found.

(c) Disposition of Fine.—Half of the fine shall go to the person injured by the violation and half to the United States Government.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §6(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1517.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 30707 | 46 App.:194. | Feb. 13, 1893, ch. 105, §5, 27 Stat. 446. |

Section

In subsection (a), the words "and who refuses to issue on demand the bill of lading herein provided for" are omitted as unnecessary. The words "shall be fined under title 18" are substituted for "shall be liable to a fine not exceeding $2,000" because of chapter 227 of title 18.

In subsection (b), the words "A civil action in rem to enforce the lien may be brought in the district court of the United States for any district in which the vessel is found" are substituted for "such vessel may be libeled therefor in any district court of the United States" for clarity and to modernize the language.
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 79204]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27055]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Amended 
Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Advisory 
Committee to the Director, National Institutes of Health, December 10, 
12:00 p.m. to December 11, 05:00 p.m. National Institutes of Health, 
Building 1, Wilson Hall, 1 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 (Virtual 
Meeting) which was published in the Federal Register on 11/30/2020, 85 
FR 76590.
    The meeting notice is amended to change the meeting start time on 
December 10, 2020 from 12:00 p.m. to 12:30 p.m. The meeting is open to 
the public.

    Dated: December 4, 2020.
Natasha M. Copeland,
Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-27055 Filed 12-8-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 1 2

- 41042 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

JOSE ROEL SALINAS, also known as Prim

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:11

- CR

- 1667

- 18

Before DAVIS, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Jose Roel Salinas has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Salinas h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the
relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 17, 2013
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 12-41042 Document: 00512473264 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2013No. 1 2

- 41042

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is G RANTED, counsel is
excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 12-41042 Document: 00512473264 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2013
### §4703. Penalty for unlawful abandonment of barge

Thirty days after the notification procedures under section 4704(a)(1) are completed, the Secretary may assess a civil penalty of not more than $1,000 for each day of the violation against an owner or operator that violates section 4702. A vessel with respect to which a penalty is assessed under this chapter is liable in rem for the penalty.

(Added Pub. L. 102–587, title V, §5302, Nov. 4, 1992, 106 Stat. 5082.)
**EXHIBIT 99.10**

**News Release****September 1, 2000**

**Trading Symbols:**TRBD (EASDAQ)

**TURBODYNE UPDATES LEGAL AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS**

**Carpinteria, California—September 1, 2000**—Turbodyne Technologies, Inc. (EASDAQ: TRBD) reports the following updates on legal affairs and financial matters:

**TST Files Motion for Prejudgment Writ of Attachment**

Turbodyne announced today that it was served with a motion for a prejudgment writ of attachment by TST on August 23, 2000. The motion is scheduled to be heard on September 19, 2000, in the Superior Court of the Countyof San Bernardino. The Company expects to file an opposition to the motion. However, the Company is currently conferring with its counsel and the other named defendants regarding all of its alternatives.

TST’s original claim was made against Pacific Baja Light Metals in its bankruptcy proceedings for approximately $1.5 million. Subsequently, TST, Inc. filed suit against Turbodyne and other defendants on March 13,2000 and increased their claim to approximately $1.8 million plus interest, costs and attorneys’ fees for materials sold to Pacific Baja and guaranteed by Turbodyne. Turbodyne has filed its response to the complaint and has been involved inlimited discovery, but to date, no hearings have taken place. 

**Turbodyne Updates Financial Matters**

Turbodyne further announces that it has secured funds in the amount of $262,000.00 and commitments for funding in the amount of $100,000.00, through private placements to accredited investors and/or directors of the Company of812,405 shares and option exercises by existing optionees of 40,000 shares, that will provide the Company with operating capital through approximately the first week of October, 2000.  The Company continues to work on securing both short-termand long-term financing. In a renewed effort to reduce expenditures, the Company has done another round of personnel cutbacks, further reducing its workforce by 30%, and continues to seek alternative ways to reduce its operating costs. The most recentpersonnel cutbacks will not affect the Turbodyne joint development program with Honeywell in any way.

As of the date of this release, Turbodyne has 53,411,067 issued and outstanding shares and 1,914,997 warrants.

Turbodyne Technologies, Inc., a California based high technology company, specializes in the development of charging technology for internal combustion engines and the development and manufacturing of high-tech assemblies forelectrically assisted turbochargers and superchargers. Turbodyne Technologies’ headquarters is located in Carpinteria, California, and its European office is located in Frankfurt, Germany. 

Contacts:

Kenneth Fitzpatrick—Investor Relations at California Headquarters:  (805) 684-4551Markus Kumbrink—Investor Relations at Frankfurt:   +49-69-69-76-73-13

This release contains forward-looking statements as defined in Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including statements about future business operations, financial performance and market conditions. Suchforward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties inherent in business forecasts.

****
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICER OF TRAMMELL CROW COMPANYPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

In connection withthe accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,2006, and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Robert E. Sulentic, Chief Executive Officer of Trammell CrowCompany (the “Company”), hereby certify that:

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

2.                Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|                             | /s/ ROBERT E.  SULENTIC  |
|-----------------------------|--------------------------|
|                        | Name: Robert E. Sulentic |
| Date: November 9, 2006 |                     |

 

----
#### Henry Black, appellee, v. Louis Hymen and Charles Hymen, trading as Hymen Brothers, appellants.

Gen. No. 28,483.

Breach of contract of employment. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Thomas J. Peden, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1923.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed December 10, 1923.

*Certiorari*denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).

M. M. Jacobs, for appellants. Eisendrath *So*Solomon, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of John T. Brown, Respondent, v. Incorporated Village of Old Brookville et al., Appellants, and Glenwood Hook *&*Ladder, Engine & Hose Co., et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal by the Incorporated Village of Old Brook-ville and its carrier from a decision and award for reduced earnings. Claimant, now deceased, began to suffer precordial pain on August 28, 1956 after directing traffic as fire policeman for 2% hours for the volunteer fire company with which he served. On August 31 he went to a physician who diagnosed a myocardial infarction. On the next day claimant was admitted to a hospital and remained there until October 14, 1956. In November, 1956 claimant, who had been a Workmen’s Compensation Referee since 1945, returned to his work as a Referee and continued in such employment until his discharge in February, 1961. After February, 1961 claimant engaged in the private practice of law. While there is medical testimony as to a permanent moderate partial disability, we find the record as presently developed completely devoid of any evidence that such disability resulted in claimant’s reduction in earnings. Lower earnings must be attributable to the injury rather than to other factors *(Matter of Haynos*v. *American Brass Co.,*8 A D 2d 870). All that is present is the fact that after more than 15 years’ service claimant was discharged as a Referee. He testified that he did not know whether the discharge had anything to do with his coronary condition and the implication from his answers is that it did not. There is no evidence that his ability to act as a Referee was in any way impaired by his condition, and the medical testimony indicates that his disability did not interfere with his work for the State. Further, while on his return to private practice claimant’s income was reduced, there is no evidence that this reduction was due to claimant’s coronary condition. There is no evidence that his ability to function as a lawyer was adversely affected by his condition in any way. Accordingly, we do not reach the other issues presented in this appeal. Decision and award reversed and matter remitted to the Workmen’s Compensation Board, with costs to appellants against the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ., concur.
#### § 1204.215 Are the information collection requirements in this subpart approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)?

OMB approved the information collection requirements contained in this subpart under 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ONRR identifies the approved OMB control number in 30 CFR 1210.10.

[78 FR 30200, May 22, 2013]
### §2901. Purpose

The purpose of this chapter is to facilitate the transfer of title to Reclamation project facilities to qualifying entities on the completion of repayment of capital costs.

(Pub. L. 116–9, title VIII, §8001, Mar. 12, 2019, 133 Stat. 804.)
§ 700.125 Eligibility for services. ( a ) *Participants, other residents, and nonresidents.* Such individuals are eligible either to participate in CHSP or to receive CHSP services, if they qualify under section 802(e)(1), (4) and (5). Under this paragraph, temporarily disabled persons are also eligible.
( b ) *Economic need.* In providing services under CHSP, grantees shall give priority to very low income individuals, and shall consider their service needs in selecting program participants.
### §315m–4. Disposition of receipts; availability for leasing of land

All moneys received by the Secretary of the Interior in the administration of leased lands as provided in section 315m–2 of this title shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts, but are made available, when appropriated by the Congress, for the leasing of lands under sections 315m–1 to 315m–4 of this title and shall not be distributed as provided under sections 315i and 315j of this title.

(June 23, 1938, ch. 603, §4, 52 Stat. 1033.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as a part of act June 28, 1934, known as the Taylor Grazing Act, which comprises this subchapter.
#### § 60.121 [Reserved]
#### Patrick D. Barrett, Individually and as a Limited Partner of Delma Associates, LP, Appellant, v Kevork Toroyan et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[833 NYS2d 497]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered October 24, 2006, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the seventh and eighth causes of action in the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Regarding the cause of action for tortious interference with contract, defendants’ conduct was justified by their clear eco*367noxnic interest in not having Delma’s largest investor and director deal with plaintiff, a terminated senior executive, until his disputes with Delma were resolved *(see Felsen v Sol Café Mfg. Corp.,*24 NY2d 682, 687 [1969]). In light of such justification, plaintiff cannot demonstrate, in connection with his cause of action for interference with prospective business relations, that defendants were motivated “solely” by actual malice. The conduct, which involved persuasion rather than undue economic pressure, did not employ wrongful means *(see Carvel Corp. v Noonan,*3 NY3d 182, 189-191 [2004]).

We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Sweeny, Malone and Kavanagh, JJ.
T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N NO. 03-11-00038- CV In re Jesse How ard Williams
ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM H AY S CO UNTY M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N The pe tition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P . 52.8(a) .

__________________________________________ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Henson a nd Goodwin Filed: F ebrua

ry 2, 2011
109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3418

AN ACT

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 

Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of 

the Interior to participate in the Central Texas Water 

Recycling and Reuse Project, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2

•HR 3418 EH 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Central Texas Water 

3 Recycling Act of 2006’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Reclamation Wastewater and 

6 Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102–

7 575; 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended by inserting after 

8 section 16ll the following new section: 

9 ‘‘SEC. 16ll. CENTRAL TEXAS WATER RECYCLING AND 

10 REUSE PROJECT. 

11 ‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary, in coopera12 tion with the City of Waco and other participating commu13 nities in the Central Texas Water Recycling and Reuse 

14 Project is authorized to participate in the design, plan15 ning, and construction of permanent facilities to reclaim 

16 and reuse water in McLennan County, Texas. 

17 ‘‘(b) COST SHARE.—The Federal share of the costs 

18 of the project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 

19 25 percent of the total cost. 

20 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—The Secretary shall not provide 

21 funds for the operation and maintenance of the project 

22 described in subsection (a). 

23 ‘‘(d) SUNSET OF AUTHORITY.—The authority of the 

24 Secretary to carry out any provisions of this section shall 

25 terminate 10 years after the date of enactment of this sec26 tion.’’. 
3

•HR 3418 EH 

1 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

2 in section 2 of Public Law 102–575 is amended by insert3 ing after the item relating to section 16ll the following:

‘‘Sec. 16ll. Central Texas Water Recycling and Reuse Project.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives May 2, 2006. 

Attest:

Clerk. 
109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3418

AN ACT

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and 

Project, and for other purposes.the Central Texas Water Recycling and Reuse ize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to author-
### §608. Separability

If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the chapter and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title VII, §708, formerly title VI, §608, 48 Stat. 1105; renumbered title VII, §708, Pub. L. 98–549, §6(a), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 2804.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, 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.
## NO. 12

- 10

- 00 382

- C R

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

' IN RE: BRUCE DARRELL WILLIAMS, RELATOR ' ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
' MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM In this original mandamus proceeding, Relator Bruce Da rrell Williams complains that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Relator’s motion for appointment of counsel to assist him in filing a motion for DNA testing. Relator contends that he met the statutory requirements for appointment of counsel , and therefore the trial court had no discretion to deny the motion. In a criminal case, a relator is entitled to mandamus relief only if he establishes that (1) he has no other adequate legal remedy and (2) under the facts and the law, the act sought to be compelled is purely ministerial. See State ex rel. Hill v. Fifth Court of Appeals , 34 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). A “convicted person” seeking DNA testing is entitled to counsel if the convicting court finds that reasonable grounds exis t for filing a motion for DNA testing and also finds that the convicted person is indigent. T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 64.01(c) (Vernon Supp. 2010). Here, Relator filed a pro se motion for appointed counsel, and the State responded that Relator did not meet the requisite criteria. The trial court denied Relator’s motion without finding that reasonable grounds exist for Relator to file his DNA motion. Absent this finding, Relator cannot show that the action he seeks to compel is purely ministerial a nd therefore cannot show that he is entitled to mandamus.
See Hill , 34 S.W.3d at 927. Accordingly, Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is
denied

. O pinion delivered December 8 , 2010. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
(DO N OT PUBLISH)
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**


**SARBANES-OXLEY
      ACT OF 2002**




Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-K of Lightstone Value Plus Real Estate Investment
      Trust, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      the undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies that:




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




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




March
      31,
      2008




/s/
              Jenniffer
              CollinsJenniffer
                Collins
              Interim
                Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
              (Principal
                Financial and Accounting Officer)
§ 91.425 Certifications. ( a ) *Consortium certifications* — ( 1 ) *General* —i) *Affirmatively furthering fair housing.* Each Consortium is required to submit a certification, consistent with §§ 5.151 and 5.152 of this title, that it will affirmatively further fair housing. ( ii ) *Anti-displacement and relocation plan.* Each consortium must certify that it has in effect and is following a residential antidisplacement and relocation assistance plan in connection with any activity assisted with funding under the HOME or CDBG program.
( iii ) *Anti-lobbying.* The consortium must submit a certification with regard to compliance with restrictions on lobbying required by 24 CFR part 87, together with disclosure forms, if required by that part.
( iv ) *Authority of consortium.* The consortium must submit a certification that the consolidated plan is authorized under State and local law (as applicable) and that the consortium possesses the legal authority to carry out the programs for which it is seeking funding, in accordance with applicable HUD regulations.
( v ) *Consistency with plan.* The consortium must certify that the housing activities to be undertaken with CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA funds are consistent with the strategic plan.
( vi ) *Acquisition and relocation.* The consortium must certify that it will comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4601), and implementing regulations at 49 CFR part 24.
( vii ) *Section 3.* The consortium must certify that it will comply with section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701u), and implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 75.
( 2 ) *HOME program.* The consortium must provide the following certifications: ( i ) If it plans to use HOME funds for tenant-based rental assistance, a certification that rental-based assistance is an essential element of its consolidated plan;
( ii ) That it is using and will use HOME funds for eligible activities and costs, as described in §§ 92.205 through 92.209 of this subtitle and that it is not using and will not use HOME funds for prohibited activities, as described in § 92.214 of this subtitle; and
( iii ) That before committing funds to a project, the consortium will evaluate the project in accordance with guidelines that it adopts for this purpose and will not invest any more HOME funds in combination with other federal assistance than is necessary to provide affordable housing.
( b ) *CDBG entitlement community certifications.* A CDBG entitlement community that is a member of a consortium must submit the certifications required by § 91.225 (a) and (b), and, if applicable, of § 91.225 (c) and (d).
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2506-0117) [60 FR 1896, Jan. 5, 1995, as amended at 72 FR 73493, Dec. 27, 2007; 80 FR 42366, July 16, 2015; 85 FR 47910, Aug. 7, 2020; 85 FR 61567, Sept. 29, 2020; 86 FR 30792, June 10, 2021]