alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1428. Authorization of appropriations

(a) For the purpose of promoting economic development in the territory of Guam, there is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior to be paid to the government of Guam for the purposes of this subchapter the sum of $5,000,000.

(b) In addition to the appropriations authorized in subsection (a), $1,000,000 is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior to be paid to the government of Guam annually for five fiscal years commencing in fiscal year 1978 to carry out the purposes of this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 90–601, §2, Oct. 17, 1968, 82 Stat. 1172; Pub. L. 95–134, title II, §202, Oct. 15, 1977, 91 Stat. 1161.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the Organic Act of Guam which comprises this chapter.

#### Amendments

1977—Pub. L. 95–134 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
MARCH 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          12,077
<SECURITIES>                                     8,577
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,648
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (802)
<INVENTORY>                                        134
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,757
<PP&E>                                           8,111
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,399
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,357
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,487
<BONDS>                                            125
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            98
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,648
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,357
<SALES>                                          1,958
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,070
<CGS>                                              315
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,261
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,096
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   4
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,931
<INCOME-TAX>                                       686
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,245
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Opinion issued July 24 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 14
- 00568
- CR

——————————— EX PARTE ROGER JOPLI NG

On Appeal from the 178th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1431568

MEMORANDUM OPINION On July 11, 2014, appellant, Roger Jopling , filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion to dismiss complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) and no prior decision has issued in this case. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.2(a). Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss this appeal.2

We dismiss any other pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Massengale. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2( b ).
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3412 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3412

To authorize and request the President to issue a posthumous commission 
in the regular Army to Milton Holland, who, while sergeant major of the 
5th Regiment, United States Colored Infantry, was awarded the Medal of 
               Honor for gallantry during the Civil War.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 22, 2005

Mr. Ney (for himself, Mr. Strickland, Mr. Butterfield, and Mr. Cantor) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize and request the President to issue a posthumous commission 
in the regular Army to Milton Holland, who, while sergeant major of the 
5th Regiment, United States Colored Infantry, was awarded the Medal of 
               Honor for gallantry during the Civil War.

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

SECTION 1. REQUEST FOR POSTHUMOUS APPOINTMENT OF MILTON HOLLAND AS A 
              COMMISSIONED OFFICER IN THE ARMY.

    (a) Request.--The President is authorized and requested to issue, 
or have issued, a posthumous commission in the grade of captain in the 
regular Army in the name of Milton Holland, who, while sergeant major 
of the 5th Regiment, United States Colored Infantry, was awarded the 
Medal of Honor in recognition of his action on September 29, 1864, 
during the Battle of Chapin's Farm, Virginia, when, as the citation for 
the medal states, Sergeant Major Holland ``took command of Company C, 
after all the officers had been killed or wounded, and gallantly led 
it''.
    (b) Treatment of Benefits.--The provisions of section 1523 of title 
10, United States Code, apply in the case of a commission issued as 
requested in subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
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 of Simon Property Group L.P. (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Simon, Chief Executive Officer of Simon Property Group, Inc., the general
partner of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|/s/ David SimonDavid Simon
Chief Executive Officer,
Simon Property Group, Inc.,
the General Partner of the Company Simon Property Group, Inc.
May 15, 2003 |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Simon Property Group, L.P. and will be retained by
Simon Property Group, L.P. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
### §1952. Fiscal procedures assistance

Upon request of the Government of Palau, the Secretary of the Interior shall provide assistance to the Government of Palau to develop and promulgate regulations for the effective expenditure of funds received pursuant to this joint resolution, Public Laws 99–658 [48 U.S.C. 1931 et seq.] and 99–239 [48 U.S.C. 1901 et seq., 2001 et seq.], or any other Act of Congress.

(Pub. L. 101–219, title I, §102, Dec. 12, 1989, 103 Stat. 1870.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This joint resolution, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 101–219, Dec. 12, 1989, 103 Stat. 1870, which enacted this part and sections 1846 and 1972 of this title, amended sections 1615 and 1933 of this title and section 10251 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement, and enacted provisions set out as a note under section 1905 of Title 44, Public Printing and Documents. For complete classification of this joint resolution to the Code, see Tables.

Public Law 99–658, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 99–658, Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3672, which is classified generally to part A of this subchapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

Public Law 99–239, referred to in text, is Pub. L. 99–239, Jan. 14, 1986, 99 Stat. 1770, known as the Compact of Free Association Act of 1985, which is classified principally to part A of subchapter I of this chapter and chapter 19 (§2001 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1901 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was formerly set out as a note under section 1681 of this title.
#### FINKELSTEIN v. KESSLER.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

June 22, 1903.)

1. Guaranty—Requisites—Expressing Consideration—Necessity.

Under Laws 1863, p. 802, c. 464, omitting in the re-enactment of the statute of frauds the provision requiring the consideration of a promise to answer for the debt of another to be expressed in the writing containing the promise, the written guaranty to be responsible for goods thereafter sold by plaintiff to a third person need not express the consideration.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Eigh'th District.

Action by Louis Finkelstein against Samuel Kessler. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ.

Bennett & Silverman, for appellant.

M. H. Hayman, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment herein must be reversed. The written guaranty given by the defendant to the plaintiff, in which *267he became responsible for goods subsequently sold by plaintiff to one Abelsohn, did not need to express consideration. Chapter 464, p. 802, Laws 1863; Evansville Nat. Bank v. Kaufman, 93 N. Y. 273, 45 Am. Rep. 204; Everson v. Gere, 122 N. Y. 293, 25 N. E. 492.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
*Circuit Judge of the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

 

**Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-60395

 

CITY OF SOUTHAVEN, MISSISSIPPI; HAROLD MOORE,

Individually And Officially As Members of the

Board of Aldermen, City of Southaven, Mississippi;

LORINE CADY, Individually And Officially As Members

of the Board of Alderman, City of Southaven, 

Mississippi; HERBERT DICKSON, Individually And 

Officially As Members of the Board of Aldermen, City

of Southaven, Mississippi; LENA THATCH, Individually

And Officially As Members of the Board of Aldermen,

City of Southaven, Mississippi; OATY HART, Individually

And Officially As Members of the Board of Aldermen, City

of Southaven, Mississippi; SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

NUTMEG INSURANCE COMPANY AND/OR ITT HARTFORD;

TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellees.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi 

(2:95-CV-132B)

 

March 7, 1995

Before LAY*, HIGGINBOTHAM and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:**
2

We are persuaded that the district court did not err in

concluding that the law enforcement exclusions in the Nutmeg and

Twin City policies barred coverage for the claims of the Lusk

family. Equally so, we are unpersuaded that the district court

erred in concluding that Nutmeg and Twin City owed no duty to

defend. Finally, we are persuaded that the district court did not

err in concluding that Twin City did not waive reliance on the law

enforcement exclusion by its handling of the reservation of rights

notice.

The City of Southaven, Mississippi purchased three insurance

policies with complimentary coverages. We agree with the district

court’s reading of these interlaced coverages.

AFFIRMED.
#### PEOPLE, Respondent, v. CALLAHAN, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, B'ourth Department.

March 15, 1905.)

Proceedings by the people of the state of New York against Charles Callahan. No opinion. Judgment of conviction and order affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1



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 Annual Report of Verdant Technology Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David J. Curd, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 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.



Date:

November 17, 2008



| |     |                                      
| | --- | -------------------------------------
| | By: | /s/ DAVID J. CURD                    
| |     | David J. Curd
Chief Executive Officer
#### In the Matter of Peter Cordes, Appellant, v Frank R. Cordes, Respondent.

In a support proceeding pursuant to article 4 of the Family Court Act, the petitioner wife appeals, (1) as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Westchester County, dated April 26, 1977, as denied her motion for sequestration and sale of the marital home and the personal property therein and (2) from a further order of the same court, dated September 20, 1977, which (a) denied her application to hold *982respondent in contempt and (b) adhered to the prior order with respect to the application for sequestration and sale. Appeal from the order of April 26, 1977 dismissed. The appeal from that order was untimely. Appeal from so much of the order dated September 20, 1977 as related to the issues of sequestration and sale dismissed. Those matters were determined in the prior order of April 26, 1977. No notice of appeal from that order was filed until September, 1977 (see CPLR 5513, subd [a]). Order dated September 20, 1977 otherwise reversed, on the law, by deleting the first decretal paragraph thereof, which relates to the application to hold respondent in contempt, and proceeding remanded to the Family Court for a *de novo*hearing and the making of findings of fact with respect to the allegations that respondent willfully defaulted in his support obligations. Petitioner is awarded one bill of $50 costs and disbursements to cover both appeals. Had we reached the merits of the issue as to sequestration and sale we would have affirmed as there is no evidence that respondent left, or threatened to leave, the State (see Family Ct Act, §§429, 457). Petitioner’s proper remedy was to seek sequestration incidental to a matrimonial action for separation in the Supreme Court pursuant to section 243 of the Domestic Relations Law or to seek enforcement of a judgment entered on the arrears. The denial of the application to hold respondent in contempt was improper. "Where a respondent is brought before the court for failure to obey the provisions of a support order, the court should hold a hearing and take proofs on the issue of whether or not the failure of respondent was willful” *(Matter of Atkins v Atkins,*28 AD2d 1098; see, also, Family Ct Act, § 454). After the hearing the court should render a decision on the record, stating the facts essential to its conclusion. On the current state of the record it is impossible to determine whether respondent’s delinquency was willful. Latham, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.903 What records must I keep? ( a ) You must compile, retain, and make available to BSEE representatives for the functional life of all platforms: ( 1 ) The as-built drawings;
( 2 ) The design assumptions and analyses;
( 3 ) A summary of the fabrication and installation nondestructive examination records;
( 4 ) The inspection results from the inspections required by § 250.919 of this subpart; and
( 5 ) Records of repairs not covered in the inspection report submitted under § 250.919(b).
( b ) You must record and retain the original material test results of all primary structural materials during all stages of construction. Primary material is material that, should it fail, would lead to a significant reduction in platform safety, structural reliability, or operating capabilities. Items such as steel brackets, deck stiffeners and secondary braces or beams would not generally be considered primary structural members (or materials).
( c ) You must provide BSEE with the location of these records in the certification statement of your application for platform approval as required in § 250.905(j).
EXHIBIT 32

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  1350), the
undersigned, David J Cutler, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of Aspeon, Inc., (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report Form 10QSB for the three months and nine months ended March
31, 2002 of the Company (the "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements of
Section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of  1034,  and  the
information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:       September 22, 2006

By /s/David J Cutler
   ----------------------
David J Cutler
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
### §50e. Appropriations for benefit of natives; purchase of supplies for resale to natives, cooperatives, and Department employees

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to purchase from appropriations made for the benefit of natives of Alaska, food, clothing, supplies, and materials for resale, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, to employees of the Department of the Interior stationed in Alaska and to natives of Alaska and native cooperative associations under his supervision. The proceeds from such sales shall be credited to the appropriation or appropriations current at the date of the deposit thereof into the Treasury and shall be available for the same purposes.

(Feb. 20, 1942, ch. 96, 56 Stat. 95.)

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

#### Alaska Resupply Program Fund

Pub. L. 102–154, title I, Nov. 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 1007, provided that: "Beginning October 1, 1991, and thereafter, amounts collected by the Secretary in connection with the Alaska Resupply Program (Public Law 77–457) [48 U.S.C. 50e] shall be deposited into a special fund to be established in the Treasury, to be available to carry out the provisions of the Alaska Resupply Program, such amounts to remain available until expended: Provided, That unobligated balances of amounts collected in fiscal year 1991 and credited to the Operation of Indian Programs account as offsetting collections, shall be transferred and credited to this account."
§ 4.36 Action by the Ethics Law Division. ( a ) After review of the Inspector General's report, the Ethics Law Division shall determine whether or not there is sufficient information providing a reasonable basis to believe that a violation of Section 103 or this subpart B has occurred.
( b ) If the Ethics Law Division determines that there is no reasonable basis to believe that a violation of Section 103 or this subpart B has occurred, it shall close the matter and send its determination to the Office of Inspector General.
( c ) If the Ethics Law Division determines that there is sufficient information to provide a reasonable basis to believe that a violation of Section 103 or this subpart B has occurred, it shall: ( 1 ) Send its determination to the Office of Inspector General; and
( 2 ) Refer the matter to the appropriate official for review as to whether to impose a civil money penalty in accordance with 24 CFR part 30; provided, however, that the Ethics Law Division shall not make a civil money penalty recommendation unless it finds the violation to have been knowing and material. The decision to impose a civil money penalty in a particular matter may be made only upon referral from the Ethics Law Division.
( d ) In determining whether a violation is material, the Ethics Law Division shall consider the following factors, as applicable: ( 1 ) The content of the disclosure and its significance to the person to whom the disclosure was made;
( 2 ) The time during the selection process when the disclosure was made;
( 3 ) The person to whom the disclosure was made;
( 4 ) The dollar amount of assistance requested by the person to whom the disclosure was made;
( 5 ) The dollar amount of assistance available for a given competition or program;
( 6 ) The benefit, if any, received or expected by the employee, the employee's relatives or friends, or any other person with whom the employee is affiliated;
( 7 ) The potential injury to the Department.
( e ) If the Ethics Law Division determines that there is sufficient information to provide a reasonable basis to believe that a violation of Section 103 or this subpart B has occurred, it may, in addition to referring the matter under 24 CFR part 30, refer the matter to an appropriate HUD official for consideration of any other available disciplinary action. Any referral authorized by this paragraph (e) shall be reported to the Inspector General and may be reported to the employee's supervisor.
Step 1: Do not calibrate compass inside parking structures, near buildings and metal core roads. For best performance, only calibrate in open elds far away from power

lines and other metallic or concrete

structures. Step 3: Move the Proportional Control Rate Slider - located on the right side of the controller - to the highest position near the

rabbit icon. Step 2: Power on the aircraft and the controller and make sure they are connected correctly (If they are not connected correctly, the telemetry data will not display on the
screen). 

## 4 X

Step 4: Hold rudder stick left while at the same time toggling the mode switch more than 4 times. If successful, ST10 will indicate compass calibration has started.

Step 5: P ick up the aircraft and hold it at in your hands with its nose pointed to the north. After 5 seconds of ashing slowly, the main LED will start ashing rapidly. Step 7: Rotate the aircraft 45 degrees to the left. Then slowly rotate the aircraft 360 degrees as illustrated, until it is at and upright in your hands again. Step 6: Slowly rotate the aircraft 360 degrees as illustrated, until it is at and upright in your hands again. Step 8: Rotate the aircraft 45 degrees to the left. Then slowly rotate the aircraft 360 degrees as illustrated, until it is at and upright in your hands again.

Step 9: Rotate the aircraft 45 degrees to the left. Then slowly rotate the aircraft 360 degrees around as illustrated, until it is at and upright in your hands again. Step 11: If successful the aircraft will beep a positive conrmation and then restart itself. Your aircraft is now ready to y! (Failed calibration results in white glowing main LED). Step 10: The main LED on the aircraft should now be blinking rapidly. Hold the aircraft as still as possible until it stops blinking rapidly. Note: Step 6 to 9 should be completed in a time period of 30 seconds in order to successfully complete the calibration. 

# 30