alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §3502. Seal of office

The Director shall cause a seal of office to be made for the Central Intelligence Agency, of such design as the President shall approve, and judicial notice shall be taken thereof.

(June 20, 1949, ch. 227, §2, 63 Stat. 208; Pub. L. 108–458, title I, §1071(b)(2)(A), Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Stat. 3690.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 403b of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

#### Amendments

2004—Pub. L. 108–458 struck out "of Central Intelligence" after "Director".

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

#### Effective Date of 2004 Amendment

For Determination by President that amendment by Pub. L. 108–458 take effect on Apr. 21, 2005, see Memorandum of President of the United States, Apr. 21, 2005, 70 F.R. 23925, set out as a note under section 3001 of this title.

Amendment by Pub. L. 108–458 effective not later than six months after Dec. 17, 2004, except as otherwise expressly provided, see section 1097(a) of Pub. L. 108–458, set out in an Effective Date of 2004 Amendment; Transition Provisions note under section 3001 of this title.
### **CHAPTER 95—PERSONNEL FLEXIBILITIES RELATING TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE**

Sec.
9501.
Internal Revenue Service personnel flexibilities.
9502.
Pay authority for critical positions.
9503.
Streamlined critical pay authority.
9504.
Recruitment, retention, relocation incentives, and relocation expenses.
9505.
Performance awards for senior executives.
9506.
Limited appointments to career reserved Senior Executive Service positions.
9507.
Streamlined demonstration project authority.
9508.
General workforce performance management system.
9509.
General workforce classification and pay.
9510.
General workforce staffing.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Carlos Reyes, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered September 11, 2016, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered September 11, 2016, reversed, on the law, accusatory instrument dismissed, fine and surcharge, if paid, remitted.</p><p>As the People concede, defendant's conviction must be vacated since the plea record lacks the requisite "affirmative showing" that defendant understood and waived his <i>Boykin</i> rights (<i>Boykin v Alabama</i>, 395 US 238, 242 [1969]; <i>People v Tyrell</i>, 22 NY3d 359, 365 [2013]). The People also agree that dismissal of the accusatory instrument is the appropriate corrective action in this particular case (<i>cf. People v Conceicao</i>, 26 NY3d 375, 385 n 1 [2015]). </p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<p>Decision Date: October 13, 2017</p><br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Exhibit 11. Statement Re Computation of Per Share Earnings
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
     
     (In 000's, except per share data)
                                                      Quarters ended March 31,
                                                        1998           1997
     <S>                                             <C>            <C>

     Basic earnings per share:
     Net earnings                                    $ 2,966        $ 1,074
      Deduct dividends on preference stock               627            630
     
      Net earnings applicable to common stock        $ 2,339        $   444
     
     Shares:
      Weighted average number of common
       shares outstanding                             14,708         14,769
     
     Basic earnings per share                        $  0.16        $  0.03
     
     Diluted earnings per share:
     Net earnings applicable to common stock         $ 2,339        $   444
      
     Shares:
      Weighted average number of common
       shares outstanding                             14,708         14,769
      Dilutive effect of outstanding 
       options and rights (as determined
       by the application of the treasury
       stock method at the average market
       price for the period)                              41            111
     
      Weighted average number of shares
      outstanding, as adjusted                        14,749         14,880
     
     Diluted earnings per share                      $  0.16        $  0.03
     
</TABLE>
     
     
                              -17-
#### Anton Kristel, appellee, v. Michigan Central Railway Company, appellant.

Gen. No. 7,342.

Suit for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when struck by defendant’s train. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Will county; the Hon. Frederick A. Hill, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1924.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed March 27, 1925.

Rehearing denied April 28, 1925.

Donovan, Bray & Gray, for appellant; Winston, Strawn & Shaw, of counsel.

Finn & Miller and C. Helmar Johnson, for appellee; Orr & Brumund, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Jones

delivered the opinion of the court.
# C_2023324EN.01000801.xml

| 14.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 324/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/8

---

Notice for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2023/1767 , and in Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 as implemented by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1765 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

(2023/C 324/03)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entities that appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/1767 (2), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1765 (4) concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.

1

2

3

4

The Council of the European Union, after having reviewed the list of persons and entities designated in the above-mentioned Annexes, has determined that the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2014/145/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 should continue to apply to those persons and entities.

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the web sites in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 4 of the Regulation).

The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address before 2 November 2023:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1 |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  
  OJ L 78, 17.3.2014, p. 16.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 226, 14.9.2023, p. 104.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 78, 17.3.2014, p. 6.

3

(4)  
  OJ L 226, 14.9.2023, p. 3.

4

---
### §40311. Continuing emphasis

The Administration shall continue its emphasis on the importance of education to expand opportunities for Americans to understand and participate in the Administration's aeronautics and space projects by supporting and enhancing science and engineering education, research, and public outreach efforts.

(Pub. L. 111–314, §3, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3388.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 40311 | 42 U.S.C. 17781(c). | Pub. L. 110–422, title VII, §704(c), Oct. 15, 2008, 122 Stat. 4803. |

Section
EO12866_SSM Petition_2060-AR68_Supplemental Proposal_FRN_20140717 

Summary of Responses to E.O. 12866 Review Comments 

August 25, 2014 

Page numbers refer to the “Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language 

under EO12866/13563 Interagency Review.” 

Page 9 – Clarifying edits have been made to footnote 2. 

Page 13 – These terms are not defined in existing 40 CFR part 51 rule text and we are not 

proposing to add or revise any rule text through this action. No edits have been made. 

Page 19 – Clarifying edits have been made. 

Page 21 – A clarifying footnote has been added. 

Pages 26 and 27 – New text has been added to respond to the comments. 

Page 29 – Clarifying edits have been made. 

Page 34 – Clarifying edits have been made. 

Page 35 – Clarifying edits have been made. 

Page 39 – Clarifying edits have been made. 

Page 49 – We have added a cross reference to another section of the preamble. 

Page 104 – A clear reference to the NRDC v. EPA court case has been added in several passages.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Financial Institutions Supervisory Act of 1966

              														Financial Institutions Supervisory Act of 1966, October 16, 1966.						https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/1037,			accessed on September 5, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
#### Victoria S. Scotto, Respondent, v Nicola A. Scotto, Appellant.

In a matrimonial action, defendant appeals from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 31, 1977, which, *inter alia,*(1) failed to grant him a divorce and (2) awarded temporary custody of the parties’ infant children to the plaintiff. Judgment modified by (1) deleting the third and eighth decretal paragraphs thereof and (2) deleting so much of the fourth decretal paragraph thereof as begins with the words "In addition”. As so modified judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and action remanded to Special Term for further proceedings consistent herewith. In this bitterly disputed matrimonial action a major issue involves the custody of the two infant children of the marriage. Despite a pre-existing separation agreement which gave custody of the children to the mother, at the time of trial the children were in the custodial care of the father. The trial testimony indicates that for the approximately 27-month period during which the father was the *de facto*custodial parent, the mother made only minimal efforts to visit the children or have the children returned to her care. Although the judgment under review, *inter alia,*awarded custody of the children to the mother for a trial period of one year, at the end of which time the question of permanent custody was to be determined by the Family Court, pursuant to sections 467 and 651 of the Family Court Act, that portion of the judgment has been stayed pending appeal, by an order of this court. The children have now been cared for by their father for approximately 40 months and since the proposed trial period of one year would have expired several months ago, we perceive no good purpose in having a trial period of uncertain result commence at this late juncture. Therefore, without intending to indicate which parent should be awarded permanent custody of the children, we believe that the children’s best interests will be served by having an immediate determination, after a full hearing, of the question of permanent custody. We have considered the other arguments raised on appeal and find them to be without merit. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2231

NANCY MARIE HELDRETH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee, and LARRY MORGAN, Individually and as an agent of Allstate Insurance Company, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-156) Submitted: January 30, 2002 Decided: February 14, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nancy Marie Heldreth, Appellant Pro Se. Brent Karleton Kesner, KESNER, KESNER & BRAMBLE, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Nancy Marie Heldreth appeals from the district court’s order awarding partial summary judgment to Allstate Insurance Company in this civil action. We have reviewed the record and the districtcourt’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Heldreth v. Allstate Ins. Co. , No. CA-99-156 (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 30, 2001). We deny Heldreth’s motion to prevent removal of abandoned property and to prevent Monangalia County from assessing a monetary penalty. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### FORTY-SECOND ST. R. CO. v. CANTOR.

(Supreme Court, Appellate pivision, First Department.

February 24, 1905.)

Action by the *1124Forty-Second Street Railroad Company against Jacob A. Cantor, as president, etc. No opinion. Motion denied.
#### Kenneth Parker, Respondent, v Crown Equipment Corporation, Formerly Known as Crown Controls Corp., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. Kenneth Parker, Respondent, v Crown Equipment Corporation, Formerly Known as Crown Controls Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendants. Kenneth Parker, Appellant, v Crown Equipment Corporation, Formerly Known as Crown Controls Corp., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[835 NYS2d 46]

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Rolando T. Acosta, J.), two of which entered May 15, 2006, and one entered May 16, 2006, which (1) denied the motion by defendants Crown Equipment and Barnes for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs claim for negligent maintenance, repair and inspection of a forklift braking system, (2) denied the motion by Crown Equipment for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages, and (3) granted the in limine motion by Crown Equipment and Barnes to the extent of ordering a *Frye*hearing before a special referee to test the admissibility of plaintiffs expert opinions, unanimously modified, on the law, the motion for summary dismissal of the punitive damage claim granted, the in limine motion for a *Frye*hearing denied, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Regarding the claim for negligent maintenance, repair and inspection of the stand-up forklift that allegedly caused *348plaintiff’s injuries, there are factual issues as to whether defendants deviated from a standard of care when servicing the vehicle, and whether faulty brakes actually caused the accident. At this point in the proceedings, defendants are unable to establish that they neither created nor were aware of the braking problems at the time of the accident by the manner in which the vehicle was inspected, repaired or maintained *(cf. Santoni v Bertelsmann Prop., Inc.,*21 AD3d 712, 713 [2005]).

Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages offers no evidence of conduct demonstrating a high degree of moral turpitude and wanton dishonesty as to imply criminal indifference to civil obligations to the public *(Lavanant v General Acc. Ins. Co. of Am.,*212 AD2d 450 [1995]). The in limine motion for a hearing to determine the admissibility of plaintiffs expert opinions *(Frye v United States,*293 F 1013 [DC Cir 1923]) was improperly granted. Where expert testimony does not involve anything “novel or experimental,” it does not warrant a preliminary Frye-type hearing *(see Marsh v Smyth,*12 AD3d 307, 311-312 [2004, Saxe, J., concurring]). Here, the experts’ conclusions were not based on novel theories, but rather on the application of accepted protocol to the facts offered on the record *(see People v Wesley,*83 NY2d 417, 422-423 [1994]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Buckley, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.
Exhibit 32




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Daniel
T. Meisenheimer, Chief Executive Officer and President of United States
Basketball League, Inc., certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of United States Basketball League, Inc., as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of United
States Basketball League, Inc. for the periods presented.





/s/ Daniel T. Meisenheimer,
    IIIName:
              Daniel
      T. Meisenheimer, IIIDate:
              June
      15, 2009





I,
Richard C. Meisenheimer, Chief Financial Officer of United States Basketball
League, Inc., certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of United States Basketball League, Inc., as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of United
States Basketball League, Inc. for the periods presented.





/s/ Richard C.
  MeisenheimerName:
              Richard
      C. MeisenheimerDate:
              June
      15, 2009
### SUBCHAPTER III—GRIEVANCES, APPEALS, AND REVIEW

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1979—Pub. L. 96–54, §2(a)(42), Aug. 14, 1979, 93 Stat. 383, inserted ", APPEALS, AND REVIEW" after "GRIEVANCES".
### §304107. Transmittal of legislative recommendations, testimony, or comments to any officer or agency of the United States prior to submission to Congress

No officer or agency of the United States shall have any authority to require the Council to submit its legislative recommendations, or testimony, or comments on legislation to any officer or agency of the United States for approval, comments, or review, prior to the submission of the recommendations, testimony, or comments to Congress. When the Council voluntarily seeks to obtain the comments or review of any officer or agency of the United States, the Council shall include a description of the actions in its legislative recommendations, testimony, or comments on legislation that it transmits to Congress.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3213.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 304107 | 16 U.S.C. 470r. | Pub. L. 89–665, title II, §210, as added Pub. L. 94–422, title II, §201(9), Sept. 28, 1976, 90 Stat. 1322; Pub. L. 96–515, title III, §301(k), Dec. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 2999. |

Section
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsEstimation of Modal Parameters Using a Wavelet-Based ApproachModal stability parameters are extracted directly from aeroservoelastic flight test data by decomposition of accelerometer response signals into time-frequency atoms. Logarithmic sweeps and sinusoidal pulses are used to generate DAST closed loop excitation data. Novel wavelets constructed to extract modal damping and frequency explicitly from the data are introduced. The so-called Haley and Laplace wavelets are used to track time-varying modal damping and frequency in a matching pursuit algorithm. Estimation of the trend to aeroservoelastic instability is demonstrated successfully from analysis of the DAST data.Document ID19970040858Acquisition SourceArmstrong Flight Research CenterDocument TypeReprint (Version printed in journal)AuthorsLind, Rick*(NASA Dryden Flight Research Center Edwards, CA United States)*Brenner, Marty*(NASA Dryden Flight Research Center Edwards, CA United States)*Haley, Sidney M.*(NASA Dryden Flight Research Center Edwards, CA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 1997Subject CategoryAircraft Stability And ControlReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-97-206300H-2214NAS 1.15:206300Meeting InformationMeeting: Atmospheric Flight Mechanics ConferenceLocation: New Orleans, LACountry: United StatesStart Date: August 8, 1997End Date: August 11, 1997Sponsors:American Inst. of Aeronautics and AstronauticsAccession Number97N31956Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-63-50Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970040858.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024