alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 553.27 When I submit audited annual financial statements to verify my unencumbered assets, what standards must they meet? Any audited annual financial statements that you submit must: ( a ) Meet the standards in § 553.24; and
( b ) Include a certification by the independent accountant who audited the financial statements that states: ( 1 ) The value of the unencumbered assets is reasonable and uses the same valuation method used in your audited annual financial statements;
( 2 ) Any existing encumbrances are noted;
( 3 ) The assets are long-term assets held for use; and
( 4 ) The valuation method used in the audited annual financial statements is for long-term assets held for use.
### §5568. Authorization of appropriations

(a) General.—The following amounts may be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation:

(1) not more than $15,000,000 to carry out section 5562(a)(1) and (3) of this title.

(2) not more than $2,500,000 to carry out section 5562(a)(2) of this title.

(3) not more than $2,500,000 to carry out section 5562(a)(4) of this title.

(b) Availability of Amounts.—Amounts appropriated to carry out this chapter remain available until expended.

(Pub. L. 103–272, §1(d), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 854.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 5568 | 49 App.:1653(i)(9). | Oct. 15, 1966, Pub. L. 89–670, 80 Stat. 931, §4(i)(9); added Oct. 28, 1974, Pub. L. 93–496, §§6, 15, 88 Stat. 1530, 1533; restated Feb. 5, 1976, Pub. L. 94–210, §707(3), (5), 90 Stat. 125; Oct. 19, 1976, Pub. L. 94–555, §219(a), 90 Stat. 2629; May 30, 1980, Pub. L. 96–254, §206(a), 94 Stat. 412. |

Section

In subsection (a), before clause (1), the words "to the Secretary of Transportation" are added for clarity and consistency in this chapter.

In subsection (b), the words "to carry out" are substituted for "for the purpose set forth . . . in" for consistency in the revised title and with other titles of the United States Code.
Exhibit 23
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 We have issued our report dated June 23, 2020 , with respect to the financial statements and supplemental information included in the Annual Report of Navistar, Inc. 401(k) Plan for Represented Employees on Form 11-K for the year ended December 31, 2019. We consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statement of Navistar International Corporation on Form S-8 (File No. 333-162266).
 /s/ Grant Thornton LLP
 Chicago, Illinois
 June 23, 2020
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

**Outdoor Channel Holdings, Inc.**

Listing OfSubsidiaries

 

Details of the consolidated subsidiariesat December 31, 2005 are as follows:

 
| ** **                   | ** ** | **State Of**       | ** ** | ** **                           |
|------------------------------|------------|--------------------|------------|--------------------------------------|
| ** **                   | ** ** | **Incorporation/** | ** ** | ** **                           |
| **Name**                     | ** ** | **Organization**   | ** ** | **Percent Held**                     |
| ** **                   | ** ** | ** **         | ** ** | ** **                           |
| 43455 BPD, LLC               |       | California         |       | 100%                                 |
|                         |       |               |       |                                 |
| LDMA-AU, Inc.                |       | Nevada             |       | 100%                                 |
|                         |       |               |       |                                 |
| Gold Prospector’s       |       | California         |       | 100%                                 |
| Association of America, Inc. |       |               |       |                                 |
|                         |       |               |       |                                 |
| Gold Prospector’s       |       | California         |       | 100% (held by Gold Prospector’s |
| Association of               |       |               |       | Association of America, Inc.)        |
| America, LLC                 |       |               |       |                                 |
|                         |       |               |       |                                 |
| The Outdoor Channel, Inc.    |       | Nevada             |       | 100% (held by Gold Prospector’s |
|                         |       |               |       | Association of America, Inc.)        |

 

----
### §70203. Transportation investment data and planning tools

(a) In General.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary of Transportation shall—

(1) begin development of new tools and improvement of existing tools to support an outcome-oriented, performance-based approach to evaluate proposed freight-related and other transportation projects, including—

(A) methodologies for systematic analysis of benefits and costs on a national or regional basis;

(B) tools for ensuring that the evaluation of freight-related and other transportation projects could consider safety, economic competitiveness, urban and rural access, environmental sustainability, and system condition in the project selection process;

(C) improved methods for data collection and trend analysis;

(D) encouragement of public-private collaboration to carry out data sharing activities while maintaining the confidentiality of all proprietary data; and

(E) other tools to assist in effective transportation planning;

(2) identify transportation-related model data elements to support a broad range of evaluation methods and techniques to assist in making transportation investment decisions; and

(3) at a minimum, in consultation with other relevant Federal agencies, consider any improvements to existing freight flow data collection efforts that could reduce identified freight data gaps and deficiencies and help improve forecasts of freight transportation demand.

(b) Consultation.—The Secretary shall consult with Federal, State, and other stakeholders to develop, improve, and implement the tools and collect the data described in subsection (a).

(Added Pub. L. 114–94, div. A, title VIII, §8001(a), Dec. 4, 2015, 129 Stat. 1611.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The date of enactment of this section, referred to in subsec. (a), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 114–94, which was approved Dec. 4, 2015.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 2015, see section 1003 of Pub. L. 114–94, set out as an Effective Date of 2015 Amendment note under section 5313 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

August 30, 2024

CR-2024-0017

Rodney David Howle v. State of Alabama (Appeal from Calhoun Circuit Court: 

CC-21-1575) 

NOTICE 

You are hereby notified that on August 30, 2024, the following action was taken 

in the above-reference cause by the Court of Criminal Appeals:

Application for Rehearing Overruled.

D. Scott Mitchell, Clerk
#### James Lepri et al. v. Alphonso Grande.

Motion for a stay denied. Concur—■ Botein, P. J., Valente, Stevens, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9516 

AN ACT 

To amend the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act 

to provide for lifetime National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Passes for family members of members 

of the Armed Forces who lost their lives while serving 

their country. 

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

•HR 9516 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Military Families Na3 tional Parks Access Enhancement Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. LIFETIME PASSES. 

5 Section 805(b)(2) of the Federal Lands Recreation 

6 Enhancement Act (16 U.S.C. 6804(b)(2)) is amended by 

7 adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(D) Any individual who is a survivor enti9 tled to— 

10 ‘‘(i) a death gratuity under section 

11 1475 of title 10, United States Code; or 

12 ‘‘(ii) dependency and indemnity com13 pensation under chapter 13 of title 38, 

14 United States Code.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 17, 

2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9516 

AN ACT 

To amend the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancewho lost their lives while serving their country. ily members of members of the Armed Forces and Federal Recreational Lands Passes for fam- ment Act to provide for lifetime National Parks
#### J. S. APPEL SUIT & CLOAK CO., Appellant, v. BAGGOTT et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 10, 1905.)

Action by the J. S. Appel Suit & Clohk Company against Vallan,digham B. Baggott and George Ryall.

PER CURIAM.

Order reversed, so far as it strikes out the paragraphs of the complaint numbered 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, and parts of paragraphs numbered 14 and 15, and in all other respects affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party.
### §120. Procedure if no electronic database provided

(a) Safe Harbor.—If neither a State nor designated database provider provides an electronic database under section 119, a home service provider shall be held harmless from any tax, charge, or fee liability in such State that otherwise would be due solely as a result of an assignment of a street address to an incorrect taxing jurisdiction if, subject to section 121, the home service provider employs an enhanced zip code to assign each street address to a specific taxing jurisdiction for each level of taxing jurisdiction and exercises due diligence at each level of taxing jurisdiction to ensure that each such street address is assigned to the correct taxing jurisdiction. If an enhanced zip code overlaps boundaries of taxing jurisdictions of the same level, the home service provider must designate one specific jurisdiction within such enhanced zip code for use in taxing the activity for such enhanced zip code for each level of taxing jurisdiction. Any enhanced zip code assignment changed in accordance with section 121 is deemed to be in compliance with this section. For purposes of this section, there is a rebuttable presumption that a home service provider has exercised due diligence if such home service provider demonstrates that it has—

(1) expended reasonable resources to implement and maintain an appropriately detailed electronic database of street address assignments to taxing jurisdictions;

(2) implemented and maintained reasonable internal controls to promptly correct misassignments of street addresses to taxing jurisdictions; and

(3) used all reasonably obtainable and usable data pertaining to municipal annexations, incorporations, reorganizations and any other changes in jurisdictional boundaries that materially affect the accuracy of such database.

(b) Termination of Safe Harbor.—Subsection (a) applies to a home service provider that is in compliance with the requirements of subsection (a), with respect to a State for which an electronic database is not provided under section 119 until the later of—

(1) 18 months after the nationwide standard numeric code described in section 119(a) has been approved by the Federation of Tax Administrators and the Multistate Tax Commission; or

(2) 6 months after such State or a designated database provider in such State provides such database as prescribed in section 119(a).

(Added Pub. L. 106–252, §2(a), July 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 628.)

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

#### Effective Date; Application of Amendment

Section effective July 28, 2000, and applicable only to customer bills issued after the first day of the first month beginning more than 2 years after July 28, 2000, see section 3 of Pub. L. 106–252, set out as a note under section 116 of this title.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

 

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Reportof Cloud Medical Doctor Software Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2013 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Pamela Thompson, Principle FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operationsof the Company.
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of our report dated April 15, 2002 (except with respect to the matter
discussed in Note 16, as to which the date is July 9, 2002), included in Form
10-KSB for eNucleus, Inc. for the Two Month Period Ended December 31, 2001, Ten
Month Period Ended October 31, 2001 and the Year Ended December 31, 2000.


/s/ Bujan & Associates, Ltd.
    Palos Heights, Illinois

April 15, 2002 (except with respect to the matter discussed in Note 16, as to
which the date is July 9, 2002)
#### FOX v. ERBE et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 17, 1905.)

Action by Grant C. Fox against William Brbe and another. No opinion. Motion granted. See memorandum.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. B . V . J ., D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 10- 30047 D. C. No . 4 : 0 9 - c r - 0 0 1 1 3 - SE H ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe D i s tr i c tof

M ont a na S a m E . H a ddon, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r19, 2010 ** B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , T A L L M A N , an dB E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A pp el l ant , a j uv eni l e, appeal s f rom the se nt ence i m po se d fol l ow i ng hi s truepl eat o an actof j uv eni l e del i nq uency, pu rs uantt o 1 8 U . S . C . § 5 03 1, that c o n s t i tu t e da i d i n g a n dab e tt i n g b u r g l a ry , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U . S. C. § 2 ( a ) ; 1 8 U . S. C. § 1 1 5 3 ( a ) , ( b ) . A p p e llan t w a s s e n te n c e dto o f f ic ia l d e te n tio n f

o r1 4 m o n th s a n dto 

# FI LED OC T 28 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 30047 2 s up e rv is io n f

o llo w in g h is r e le a s e f

r o m o f f ic ia l d e te n tio n u n til h is e ig h te e n th b i rth d a y . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f i rm. T he r e c or d r e f

l e c t s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtc onduc t e d the r e qui s i t e “ a s s e s s m e nt o f th e to ta lityo f

th e u n iq u e c ir c u m s tan c e s a n dr e h ab ilita tiv e n e e d s ” o f ap p e llan t. U n ite d S ta tes v . J

u v e n ile , 347 F . 3d 778, 787 ( 9th C i r . 2003) . A ppe l l a ntha s not sh o w n th atth e d i stri ctco u rtab u sedi t s d i scret i o n b y fai l i n g t o i m p o se th e “ l east re stri ct i ve m eans t o acc om pl i sh [app el l ant ’ s] re habi l i t at i on . ” I d. A FFI R M ED .
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,260
<SECURITIES>                                     1,987
<RECEIVABLES>                                      682
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (64)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,580
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,800
<PP&E>                                           5,652
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,932)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,992
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,126
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        60,350
<OTHER-SE>                                    (56,913)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,992
<SALES>                                          2,544
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,544
<CGS>                                            1,984
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,984
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,413
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (400)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,017)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,017)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.64)


</TABLE>
#### Rochester Park, Inc., Respondent, v. City *of*Rochester, Appellant.

— Order unanimously affirmed, with $25 costs and disbursements. Memorandum: While section 508 ultimately might be found to be unambiguous, *“*Even in the ease of an integrated written contract, the meaning of the words may depend upon various surrounding circumstances that are in dispute; the circumstances must be found as a fact before interpretation can proceed.” (3 Corbin, Contracts, § 554, p. 223.) We pass on no other questions. (Appeal from order of Monroe, Special Term, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment and for a. declaratory judgment.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ. [38 Misc 2d 714.]
#### § 56.19131 Hoist conveyance connections.

Hoist conveyance connections shall be inspected at least once during any 24-hour period that the conveyance is used for hoisting persons.
Exhibit 5.1


June 24, 1999



Baker Hughes Incorporated
3900 Essex Lane
Houston, Texas 77027

Gentlemen:

     I am the Deputy General Counsel for Baker Hughes Incorporated, a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and have acted in such capacity
in connection with the registration under the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended (the "Act"), of 4,000,000 shares of the Company's common
stock, $1.00 par value (the "Common Stock"), to be offered upon the
terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (the "Registration Statement") relating thereto
to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 24,
1999.

     In connection therewith, I have examined originals or copies
certified or otherwise identified to my satisfaction of the Restated
Certificate of Incorporation of the Company as amended, the By-laws
of the Company, the corporate proceedings with respect to the
offering of shares and such other documents and instruments as I have
deemed necessary or appropriate for the expression of the opinions
contained herein.

     I have assumed the authenticity and completeness of all records,
certificates and other instruments submitted to me as originals, the
conformity to original documents of all records, certificates and
other instruments submitted to me as copies, the authenticity and
completeness of the originals of those records, certificates and
other instruments submitted to me as copies and the correctness of
all statements of fact contained in all records, certificates and
other instruments that I have examined.

     Based on the foregoing, and having a regard for such legal
considerations as I have deemed relevant, I am of the opinion that:

     (i)  The Company has been duly incorporated and is validly
     existing in good standing under the laws of the State of
     Delaware.

     (ii) The shares of Common Stock proposed to be sold by the
     Company have been duly and validly authorized for issuance
     and, when issued and paid for in accordance with the terms
     of the Registration Statement, and subject to the
     Registration Statement becoming effective under the Act and
     to compliance with the applicable Blue Sky laws, will be
     duly and validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable.

     I hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to
the Registration Statement.

Very truly yours,



Daniel J. Churay
Deputy General Counsel

DJC/ng
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Frank Burns et al., as Parents and Natural Guardians of Ricky Burns, Deceased, Respondents, and Richard B. Brabaw, Appellant, v Robert Miller Construction, Inc., et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed February 11, 1976, which denied compensation benefits to appellant. On November 2, 1971, the decedent, 20 years of age, died as a result of an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment. Subsequently, on October 26,1972, one Sandra Brabaw filed a claim on behalf of her son, the appellant herein, in which it was alleged that the appellant was a posthumously born illegitimate child of the decedent and, consequently, entitled to death benefits. In the decision appealed from, the board rejected this claim, after finding that the appellant was not an "acknowledged illegitimate child dependent upon the deceased” (see Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 2, subd 11), and instead found that the decedent’s parents were dependent upon him and entitled to a death award. This appeal followed. We hold that this matter must be remitted to the board. In its decision the board merely summarizes the testimony taken at the various hearings and then concludes that the decedent’s parents and not the appellant are entitled to benefits. No findings of fact are set forth therein as the basis for its conclusion, and we are left to speculate as to why the appellant was denied an award. In this regard, it remains unclear, for example, whether said denial was grounded upon a determination that the appellant was not the decedent’s child, that he was not acknowledged by the decedent or that he was not dependent upon decedent. Such being the case, an intelligent review of the board’s decision is precluded, and the matter must be remitted for further clarification *(Matter of Mennis v Amendes Co.,*56 AD2d 679; *Matter of Burnette v Schreve,*34 AD2d 186). Decision reversed, with costs to appellant against the Workmen’s Compensation Board, and matter remitted for additional *1115findings in clarification of the decision or for other proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Main, Larkin and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
S A N I T I Z E D EPICLON HP - 4700 MEASUREMENT OF VA POR PRESSURE
### SUBCHAPTER I—REALLOCATION OF PUBLIC SAFETY SPECTRUM