alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 56.14216 Backpoling.

Backpoling of trolleys is prohibited except where there is inadequate clearance to reverse the trolley pole. Where backpoling is required, it shall be done only at the minimum tram speed of the trolley.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Clyde Arthur Park, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law and facts, and a new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a conviction for arson in the fourth degree (Penal Law, § 150.05) after a jury trial. At trial, following a hearing held pursuant to *People v Sandoval*(34 NY2d 371) and over the defense attorney’s objections, the court ruled that the District Attorney would be allowed to cross-examine the defendant concerning admissions which he allegedly made to a police officer concerning five prior uncharged acts of arson. As a result of this ruling, the defendant chose not to testify in his own behalf. On appeal, the defendant contends that the court’s decision constitutes reversible error. We agree. Cross-examination as to the prior, uncharged acts of arson would be "highly prejudicial [to the defendant] in view of the risk, despite the most clear and forceful limiting instructions to the contrary, that the evidence [would] be taken as some proof of the commission of the crime charged rather than be reserved solely to the issue of credibility” *(People v Sandoval, supra,*p 377). Further, the danger of such prejudice to defendant far outweighs any possible probative value of cross-examination regarding the prior acts of arson because the jury might well have inferred that "one who has sinned before has sinned again, and is guilty of the crime charged” *(People v Carmack,*52 AD2d 264, 266, affd 44 NY2d 706; see *People v Smith,*60 AD2d 963; *People v Batchelor,*57 AD2d 1059; see, also, *People v Dickman,*42 NY2d 294). Moreover, the court’s ruling cannot be considered harmless error *(People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230) because the defendant was "the only available source of material testimony in support of his defense” *(People v Sandoval, supra,*p 378) and the ruling "effectively foreclosed defendant from testifying at the trial without running the risk of prejudicing himself before the jury.” *(People v Batchelor, supra,*p 1061.) Finally, the People’s argument that the prior acts of arson would be admissible under *People v Calvano*(30 NY2d 199) as evidence rebutting defendant’s contention that the confession was coerced is without merit. *Calvano*applies to evidence of prior acts introduced to rebut the affirmative defenses of duress and entrapment (defenses raised to the crime charged). The rule does not apply where it is claimed that the confession was coerced. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court—arson, fourth degree.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule,'Cardamone, Hancock, Jr., and Witmer, JJ.
### §326. Unsurveyed lands not subject to entry; preferential right of entry after survey

From and after March 28, 1908, the right to make entry of desert lands under the provisions of sections 321 to 323, 325, and 327 to 329 of this title, shall be restricted to surveyed public lands of the character contemplated by said sections, and no such entries of unsurveyed lands shall be allowed or made of record: Provided, however, That any individual qualified to make entry of desert lands under said sections who has, prior to survey, taken possession of a tract of unsurveyed desert land not exceeding in area three hundred and twenty acres in compact form, and has reclaimed or has in good faith commenced the work of reclaiming the same, shall have the preference right to make entry of such tract under said sections, in conformity with the public land surveys, within ninety days after the filing of the approved plat of survey in the district land office.

(Mar. 28, 1908, ch. 112, §1, 35 Stat. 52.)
### §318. Transmitting apparatus; operator's license

The actual operation of all transmitting apparatus in any radio station for which a station license is required by this chapter shall be carried on only by a person holding an operator's license issued hereunder, and no person shall operate any such apparatus in such station except under and in accordance with an operator's license issued to him by the Commission: Provided, however, That the Commission if it shall find that the public interest, convenience, or necessity will be served thereby may waive or modify the foregoing provisions of this section for the operation of any station except (1) stations for which licensed operators are required by international agreement, (2) stations for which licensed operators are required for safety purposes, and (3) stations operated as common carriers on frequencies below thirty thousand kilocycles: Provided further, That the Commission shall have power to make special regulations governing the granting of licenses for the use of automatic radio devices and for the operation of such devices.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title III, §318, 48 Stat. 1089; Mar. 29, 1937, ch. 58, 50 Stat. 56; Pub. L. 86–609, §1, July 7, 1960, 74 Stat. 363; Pub. L. 94–335, July 1, 1976, 90 Stat. 794; Pub. L. 102–538, title II, §205, Oct. 27, 1992, 106 Stat. 3543; Pub. L. 103–414, title III, §303(d), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4296.)

#### **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.

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–414 made technical amendments to directory language of Pub. L. 102–538, §205(1). See 1992 Amendment note below.

1992—Pub. L. 102–538, §205(2), redesignated cl. (4) as (3).

Pub. L. 102–538, §205(1), as amended by Pub. L. 103–414, struck out cl. (3) which read as follows: "stations engaged in broadcasting (other than those engaged primarily in the function of rebroadcasting the signals of broadcast stations),".

1976—Pub. L. 94–335 substituted "engaged primarily in the function of rebroadcasting the signals of broadcast stations" for "engaged solely in the function of rebroadcasting the signals of television broadcast stations" in parenthetical provisions of cl. (3).

1960—Pub. L. 86–609 inserted "(other than those engaged solely in the function of rebroadcasting the signals of television broadcast stations)" after "engaged in broadcasting".

1937—Act Mar. 29, 1937, inserted provisos.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 2 8 , 2018

t0927 

# Order

Clerk September 28 , 2018

157092

JERMAINE HARRIS, Personal Representative

of the Estate of ANNIE RUTH FLIE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 157092

COA: 333389

Wayne CC: 14

- 006622

- NH

OAKWOOD HEALTHCARE, INC., d/b/a

OAKWOOD HOSPITAL & MEDICAL CENTER,

ANAND HIREMATH, M.D., LUNINGNING V.

REGALADO, M.D., NORMITA VICENCIO,

M.D., PC, WILLIAM I. MICHELS, III, D.O., and

DEARBORN FAMILY CLINIC, PC,

Defendants,

and

JOSEPH C. FINCH, D.O., and JOSEPH C.

FINCH, D.O., PC,

Defendants

- Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On orde r of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 12, 2017

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
### §1324. Service of process in court proceedings

(a) Designation of Agent.—A carrier providing transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under subtitle IV shall designate an agent on whom service of process in an action before a district court may be made. Except as otherwise provided, process in an action before a district court shall be served on the designated agent of that carrier at the office or usual place of residence of that agent. If the carrier does not have a designated agent, service may be made by posting the notice in the office of the Board.

(b) Changing Designation.—A designation under this section may be changed at any time in the same manner as originally made.

(Added Pub. L. 104–88, title II, §201(a), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 937, §724; renumbered §1324 and amended Pub. L. 114–110, §§3(a)(5), 8(b), Dec. 18, 2015, 129 Stat. 2228, 2232.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2015—Pub. L. 114–110, §3(a)(3), renumbered section 724 of this title as this section.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 114–110, §8(b), struck out "in the District of Columbia" after "designate an agent" and "usual place of residence".
S A N I T I Z E D

EPICLON HP-4700

MEASUREMENT OF

VAPOR PRESSURE
#### James Rumbutis, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

(Claim No. 53057.)

Judgment, Court of Claims, entered June 20, 1975, affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Larkin, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
### §731e. Chapter continued in force and effect

This chapter is continued in force and effect.

(July 3, 1950, ch. 446, §4, 64 Stat. 319.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "the Act entitled 'An Act to provide a civil government for Porto Rico, and for other purposes,' approved March 2, 1917, as amended", meaning act Mar. 2, 1917, ch. 145, 39 Stat. 951, as amended, known as the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act and also popularly known as the Jones Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 731 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act which comprises this chapter.
|                                                                                                     |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                     |
| /s/     ANDREW J. CEDEROTH         |
| Andrew J. CederothExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer) |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE JUDGE GROUP, INC. QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM
10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          10,547
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               22,316,945
<ALLOWANCES>                                   960,601
<INVENTORY>                                    125,483
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            28,907,733
<PP&E>                                       5,285,845
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,087,882
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              42,767,418
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,505,098
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       139,843
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                42,767,418
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            58,329,194
<CGS>                                       38,978,064
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               56,311,966
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               255,832
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               514,183
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             260,031
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,761,396
<INCOME-TAX>                                   737,933
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,023,463
<DISCONTINUED>                             (8,203,012)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,179,549)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.53)


</TABLE>
#### FLAMM et al., Appellants, v. PERRY et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

February 11, 1903.)

Action by Eliza J. Flamm and others against Clarence S. Perry and others.

No opinion. Order signed.
### **CHAPTER 283—STANDARD WORK DAY**

Sec.
28301.
General.
28302.
Penalties.
§ 983.156 PHA acceptance of completed units. ( a ) *Inspection of units.* After the PHA has received all required evidence of completion and the owner's certification that all work was completed in accordance with the applicable requirements, the PHA must inspect the completed units to determine whether they comply with HUD's HQS (see § 983.103(b)) and any additional design, architecture, or quality requirements specified by the PHA.
( b ) *Execution or amendment of the HAP contract.* If the PHA determines that the development activity or substantial improvement was completed in accordance with the applicable requirements at § 983.155 and the completed units meet HUD's HQS and any additional design, architecture, or quality requirements specified by the PHA per paragraph (a) of this section, then the PHA must: ( 1 ) For units developed pursuant to § 983.152(a)(1) which will not undergo development activity after HAP contract execution per § 983.157, submit the HAP contract for execution by the owner and execute the HAP contract;
( 2 ) For rehabilitated housing projects for which development activity has commenced prior to HAP contract execution, but which will undergo development activity after HAP contract execution under § 983.157(b), submit the HAP contract for execution by the owner and execute the HAP contract;
( 3 ) For development activity conducted after HAP contract execution, amend the HAP contract rider to designate the completed units as available for occupancy (§ 983.157(f)(1)(ii)) or, if the owner has completed all development activity as provided in the rider, amend the HAP contract to terminate the rider (§ 983.157(d)); or
( 4 ) For units that underwent substantial improvement in order to be added to the HAP contract, amend the HAP contract to add the units to the HAP contract (§ 983.207(d)).
( c ) *Staged completion of contract units.* Contract units developed pursuant to § 983.152(a)(1) which will not undergo development activity after HAP contract execution per § 983.157 may be placed under the HAP contract in stages commencing on different dates. In such a case, the PHA must determine separately for each stage whether the development activity was completed in accordance with the applicable requirements per § 983.155 and that the units meet HUD's HQS and any additional design, architecture, or quality requirements specified by the PHA per paragraph (a) of this section. If the first stage is determined compliant, then the PHA must submit the HAP contract for execution by the owner and must execute the HAP contract for PBV rehabilitated housing and newly constructed housing projects. As each subsequent stage is determined compliant, the PHA and owner must amend the HAP contract to add the units to the HAP contract (see § 983.207(g)).
( d ) *PHA-owned units.* The independent entity must perform the inspection required in paragraph (a) of this section and make the determination(s) required in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section in the case of PHA-owned units (see § 983.57(b)(3)).
#### In the Matter of Kevin J. Brinkworth, an Attorney.

Resignation accepted and name stricken from roll of attorneys. Present—Marsh, P. J., Cardamone, Simons, Hancock, Jr. and Witmer, JJ.
### §1509. Spectrum Challenge Prize

#### (a) Short title

This section may be cited as the "Spectrum Challenge Prize Act".

#### (b) Definition of prize competition

In this section, the term "prize competition" means a prize competition conducted by the Secretary under subsection (c)(1).

#### (c) Spectrum Challenge Prize

#### (1) In general

The Secretary, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and the Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology, shall, subject to the availability of funds for prize competitions under this section—

(A) conduct prize competitions to dramatically accelerate the development and commercialization of technology that improves spectrum efficiency and is capable of cost-effective deployment; and

(B) define a measurable set of performance goals for participants in the prize competitions to demonstrate their solutions on a level playing field while making a significant advancement over the current state of the art.

#### (2) Authority of Secretary

In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary may—

(A) enter into a grant, contract, cooperative agreement, or other agreement with a private sector for-profit or nonprofit entity to administer the prize competitions;

(B) invite the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Commission, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, or any other Federal agency to provide advice and assistance in the design or administration of the prize competitions; and

(C) award not more than $5,000,000, in the aggregate, to the winner or winners of the prize competitions.

#### (d) Criteria

Not later than 180 days after the date on which funds for prize competitions are made available pursuant to this section, the Commission shall publish a technical paper on spectrum efficiency providing criteria that may be used for the design of the prize competitions.

#### (e) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.

(Pub. L. 115–141, div. P, title VI, §619, Mar. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 1113.)
§ 285.633 How do I comply with my COP? ( a ) You must submit a certification of compliance annually (or other frequency as determined by BOEM) with certain terms and conditions of your COP that BOEM identifies. Together with your certification, you must submit: ( 1 ) Summary reports that show compliance with the terms and conditions which require certification; and
( 2 ) A statement identifying and describing any mitigation measures and monitoring methods, and their effectiveness. If you identified measures that were not effective, then you must make recommendations for new mitigation measures or monitoring methods.
( b ) As provided at § 285.105(i), BSEE may require you to submit any supporting data and information.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 8, 2020

No. 04-19-00685-CR

Dennis AVELAR-SOLORANO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CR0605

Honorable Laura Lee Parker, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file his brief is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief 

is due on or before June 8, 2020. No further extensions will be granted absent extenuating 

circumstances.

_______________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 8th day of April, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
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 Quarterly Report of IMPSAT Fiber Networks on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ricardo A. Verdaguer, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the
best of my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the registrant.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the registrant
and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



Date: November 15, 2004



/s/ Ricardo A. VerdaguerRicardo A. VerdaguerPresident and Chief Executive Officer




The foregoing certification is
being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 4.1
 
	
	SHARE CERTIFICATEHONG KONG SHARE REGISTER
DATE OF ISSUECERTIFICATE NUMBERRUN/TFR. NO.REGISTERNUMBER OF SHARE(S)CODE:NUMBER OF SHARE(S):GIVEN UNDER THE SECURITIES SEAL OF THE COMPANY ON THE DATE OF ISSUE STATED ABOVE.DIRECTORNO TRANSFER OF THE WHOLE OR ANY PORTION OF THE ABOVE SHARE(S) CAN BE REGISTERED UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY THIS SHARE CERTIFICATE.HONG KONG SHARE REGISTRAR: COMPUTERSHARE HONG KONG INVESTOR SERVICES LIMITED, SHOPS 1712-1716, 17TH FLOOR, HOPEWELL CENTRE, 183 QUEENS ROAD EAST, WANCHAI, HONG KONG.THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE UNDERMENTIONED PERSON(S) IS/ARE THE REGISTERED HOLDER(S) OF FULLY PAID ORDINARY SHARE(S) OF NOMINAL VALUE US$0.00001 PER SHARE IN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF 360 DIGITECH, INC. (THE COMPANY)AS DETAILED BELOW SUBJECT TO THE MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE COMPANY.360 DigiTech, Inc.(Incorporated in the Cayman Islands with limited liability)
V1.1
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



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, Interim Chief Financial 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
Interim Chief Financial Officer