alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 879.14 Management of acquired land.

Land acquired under this part may be used for any lawful purpose that is consistent with the necessary reclamation activities. Procedures for collection of user charges or the waiver of such charges by the OSM, State, or Indian tribe shall provide that all user fees collected shall be deposited in the appropriate Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Daniel Harley, Also Known as Daniel Hurley, Also Known as Daniel Holley, Appellant.

Motion by the People to reargue an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 17, 1975, which was reversed by order of this court dated April 24, 1978. Motion denied. On the court’s own motion, its decision and order, both dated April 24, 1978 *(People v Harley,*62 AD2d 1064), are vacated and recalled, and the following substituted decision is rendered: Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 17, 1975, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree, sodomy in the second degree and sexual abuse in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment modified, on the law, by reversing the conviction of sexual abuse in the first degree, and the sentence imposed thereon, and the said count is dismissed. As so modified, judgment affirmed. As the District Attorney concedes, the sexual abuse count is, on the facts presented on this record, an inclusory concurrent count of sodomy in the first degree, and should be dismissed. As to the sodomy counts, the indictment is legally sufficient (see *People v Jackson,*46 NY2d 171; *People v Iannone,*45 NY2d 589). The other errors complained of do not warrant reversal. Martuscello, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
#### Henry J. Barnard, Doing Business as Guaranteed Drilling Company, Respondent, v. David E. Postle, Appellant.

Defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court which denied a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to section 181 of the Civil Practice Act and rule 156 of the Rules of Civil Practice on the ground of failure to diligently prosecute the action. Plaintiff seeks to recover $2,139.12 for work, labor and services which he alleges were performed pursuant to an agreement with the defendant. The summons was served on January 30, 1956. The defendant appeared on February 14, 1956. The complaint and a note of issue were mailed to defendant’s attorney on September 23, 1958. Defendant’s attorney accepted the service but reserved the right to move with respect to the pleadings. It is a fair inference that the rather loose practice followed was by acquiescence between the attorneys. It was not until the plaintiff began to actively press the action for trial that the motion to dismiss was made. By the express terms of section 181 of the Civil Practice Act and rule 156 of the Rules of Civil Practice the court is given discretion in dealing with a motion to dismiss. No prejudice to the defendant appears and we think that the court at Special Term providently exercised its discretion in denying the motion with permission to renew if the action was not tried expeditiously. Order unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Skip Navigation

HIV/AIDS Programs

A-Z Index  |     					Questions?  |     					Order Publications

        - About HAB
        - Deliver HIV/AIDS Care
        - Get Help
        - Manage Your Grant
        - Data
        - News & Publications
        - Global HIV/AIDS

Clinical Guide

Ask Questions | 				Viewers & Players |                 Privacy Policy | 				Disclaimers | 				Accessibility |                 Freedom of Information Act | 				USA.gov |                 WhiteHouse.gov |                Recovery.gov
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. SS.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of CyberOptics Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Kathleen P. Iverson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.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.


                                                    /s/ Kathleen P. Iverson
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Kathleen P. Iverson
                                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                                    March 21, 2003
### §8992. Administrative functions

(a) The Office shall prescribe regulations to carry out this chapter. The regulations may exclude an employee on the basis of the nature and type of employment or conditions pertaining to it.

(b) The Office shall, as appropriate, provide for coordinated enrollment, promotion, and education efforts as appropriate in consultation with each qualified company. The information under this subsection shall include information relating to the vision benefits available under chapter 89, including the advantages and disadvantages of obtaining additional coverage under this chapter.

(Added Pub. L. 108–496, §3, Dec. 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 4010.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Dec. 23, 2004, and applicable to contracts that take effect with respect to the calendar year 2006, see section 7 of Pub. L. 108–496, set out as a note under section 8951 of this title.
#### William K. Trottie, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

[832 NYS2d 832]—

Lahtinen, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Hard, J.), entered April 3, 2006, upon a decision of the court in favor of defendant.

Claimant, an inmate, asserts that personnel at the correctional facility where he was incarcerated neglected to follow protocols and delayed appropriate treatment for his stomach problems. Following a trial at which claimant was the only wit*1095ness, the Court of Claims dismissed the claim. Claimant appeals.

We affirm. Claimant failed to produce at trial the facility’s protocols or to otherwise present pertinent evidence of a deviation from the appropriate standard of care *(cf. Kagan v State of New York,*221 AD2d 7, 10-16 [1996]). Moreover, even assuming improper delay in providing treatment, it was incumbent upon claimant to show by competent expert evidence that the delay was a cause of his alleged ensuing medical problems *(see Duffen v State of New York,*245 AD2d 653, 654 [1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 810 [1998]; *see also Lowe v State of New York,*35 AD3d 1281, 1282 [2006]; *Tatta v State of New York,*19 AD3d 817, 818 [2005], *lv denied*5 NY3d 712 [2005]). This he failed to do. The remaining arguments have been considered and found to be without merit.

Crew III, J.E, Peters, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6863
ALBERT MOSELY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICHLAND COUNTY J AIL; DIRECTOR MCCAULLEY; SWANSON COMMISSARY SERVICE; RICHLAND COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY COUNCIL, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CA-96-1204-3-19BC) Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 18, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert Mosley, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, JamesMiller Davis, Jr., ELLIS, LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON & SIMS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Mosley v. Richland County Jail , No. CA-96-1204-3-19BC (D.S.C. May 1, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Mary Grossfield, Appellant, v. Abe Grossfield, Respondent.

In an action by a wife for a judicial separation, in which a judgment of separation had been entered in the wife’s favor, the wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 25, 1963, as: (a) limited to $100 the award to her of a counsel fee to enable her to defend the husband’s prior appeal from the judgment of separation; (b) denied her motion to punish the, husband for contempt by reason of his refusal to pay for the orthodontia work upon the child of the parties, as directed by the judgment; and (e) denied to her a counsel fee for the making of the contempt motion. Order modified by: (a) amending its first decretal paragraph so as to increase from $100 to $250 the counsel fee to enable plaintiff to defend the appeal; and (b)‘ adding a fourth decretal paragraph to the effect that the denial of plaintiff’s motion to punish the *893defendant for contempt is without prejudice to the renewal of such motion in the event that the defendant shall persist in a willful failure to pay for “the orthodontia work and needs” of the child. As so modified, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to the appellant wife. The defendant’s time to pay the counsel fee, as increased, is extended until 10 days after entry of the order hereon. In our opinion, the provision in the separation decree directing the defendant “to provide for the orthodontia work and needs of the infant issue of the marriage” was authorized and proper *(Winkler*v. *Winkler,*25 Mise 2d 938, affd. 13 A D 2d 924, affd. 11 K Y 2d 693; *Rosenthal*v. *Rosenthal,*265 App. Div. 880; *Lechner*v. *Lechner,*232 App. Div. 699). However, the record does not clearly establish that as of the date of the making of the plaintiff’s motion the defendant had willfully or deliberately refused “ to provide for the [boy’s] orthodontia work and needs.” Under all the circumstances, we believe that the award to plaintiff of a $100 counsel fee to enable her to oppose the defendant’s appeal from the judgment of separation was inadequate to the extent indicated. Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999             MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          25,340                  70,291
<SECURITIES>                                 3,309,492               3,165,540
<RECEIVABLES>                                  115,072                 136,428
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,000                  15,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                          40,004                  40,004
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,769                  19,769
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,447,139               3,377,494
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,006                  43,799
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                     50,511                  50,511
<COMMON>                                       128,307                 128,307
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,252,315               3,154,877
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,447,139               3,377,494
<SALES>                                         54,808                  48,471
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                54,808                  48,471
<CGS>                                           38,802                  33,843
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,802                  33,843
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                38,781                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (22,775)                 14,628
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (7,000)                  4,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (15,775)                 10,628
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (15,775)                 10,628
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.02)                    .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.02)                    .00
        

</TABLE>
§ 196.135 Designation of responsible employee and adoption of grievance procedures. ( a ) *Designation of responsible employee.* Each recipient shall designate at least one employee to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out its responsibilities under these Title IX regulations, including any investigation of any complaint communicated to such recipient alleging its noncompliance with these Title IX regulations or alleging any actions that would be prohibited by these Title IX regulations. The recipient shall notify all its students and employees of the name, office address, and telephone number of the employee or employees appointed pursuant to this paragraph.
( b ) *Complaint procedure of recipient.* A recipient shall adopt and publish grievance procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution of student and employee complaints alleging any action that would be prohibited by these Title IX regulations.
Exhibit 99.0

                       REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

To the Board of Directors
  and Stockholders of
  CyberOptics Corporation

In our opinion, the accompanying statements of income, of stockholders' equity
and of cash flows present fairly, in all material respects, the results of
operations and cash flows of CyberOptics Corporation for the year ended December
31, 1993, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management; our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on
our audit. We conducted our audit of these statements in accordance with
generally accepted auditing standards which require that we plan and perform the
audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements,
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We
believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for the opinion expressed
above.


Price Waterhouse LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
February 1, 1994
### §308605. Private property protection

Nothing in this chapter—

(1) authorizes the Secretary to require or affect the management or use of private property without the written consent of the owner of the private property;

(2) prohibits the Secretary from providing land management guidance or requirements relating to private property as a condition of a grant provided to the owner of the private property under this chapter; or

(3) shall be construed as creating any new regulatory burden on any Federal, State, Tribal, or private entity.

(Added Pub. L. 117–328, div. DD, title VI, §643(a), Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 5614.)
§ 148.11 Policy. ( a ) Agency heads, or their designee, shall ensure that security policies and procedures for which they are responsible are reasonable, effective, and efficient, and that those policies and procedures enable and promote interagency reciprocity.
( b ) To the extent reasonable and practical, and consistent with US law, Presidential decree, and bilateral and international obligations of the United States, the security requirements, restrictions, and safeguards applicable to industry shall be equivalent to those applicable within the Executive Branch of government.
( c ) Once a facility is authorized approved, certified, or accredited, all government organizations desiring to conduct classified programs at the facility at the same security level shall accept the authorization, approval, certification, or accreditation without change, enhancements, or upgrades.
## U nit edSta tes C ou rt o f A pp eal s For t h e Firs t C ircu it

No. 08-2118

DECKY (FNU), IRAWATI (FNU), and DOMINIQUE AUDREY, Petitioners,
v . ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Respondent.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on November 25, 2009, is amended as follows: On page 14, footnote 5, line 3: Substitute "Irawati's" for "Dominique Audrey's".
### §5512. Withholding pay; individuals in arrears

(a) The pay of an individual in arrears to the United States shall be withheld until he has accounted for and paid into the Treasury of the United States all sums for which he is liable.

(b) When pay is withheld under subsection (a) of this section, the employing agency, on request of the individual, his agent, or his attorney, shall report immediately to the Attorney General the balance due; and the Attorney General, within 60 days, shall order suit to be commenced against the individual.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 477; Pub. L. 92–310, title II, §202, June 6, 1972, 86 Stat. 202; Pub. L. 104–316, title I, §103(b), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3828.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 82. | R.S. §1766. |

Statutes at Large

In subsection (b), reference to the "General Accounting Office" is substituted for "accounting officers of the Treasury" on authority of the Act of June 10, 1921, ch. 18, title III, 42 Stat. 23. The words "on request of" are substituted for "if required to do so by" as more accurately reflecting the intent. Reference to the "Attorney General" is substituted for "Solicitor of the Treasury" and "Solicitor" on authority of section 16 of the Act of March 3, 1933, ch. 212, 47 Stat. 1517; section 5 of E.O. 6166, June 10, 1933; and section 1 of 1950 Reorg. Plan No. 2, 64 Stat. 1261.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 104–316 substituted "employing agency" for "General Accounting Office".

1972—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 92–310 struck out "and his sureties" after "against the individual".
EXHIBIT 10.2





Description of Compensatory Arrangement with M. Peter McPherson



On April 18, 2007, the Board of Directors of Dow Jones & Company, Inc. (the Company) adopted a resolution establishing M. Peter McPhersons compensation as Chairman of the Companys Board of Directors at $300,000 per year, of which $150,000 is payable in cash and $150,000 is payable in deferred stock equivalents.  Mr. McPhersons compensation as described above became effective immediately following the Companys 2007 Annual Meeting of Shareholders on April 18, 2007 and is in lieu of all other compensation as a Director of the Company (including the annual retainer, committee chairmanship, and membership fees and attendance fees).
### §10701. Enforcement of twenty-sixth amendment

(a)(1) The Attorney General is directed to institute, in the name of the United States, such actions against States or political subdivisions, including actions for injunctive relief, as he may determine to be necessary to implement the twenty-sixth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(2) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of proceedings instituted under this chapter, which shall be heard and determined by a court of three judges in accordance with section 2284 of title 28, and any appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court. It shall be the duty of the judges designated to hear the case to assign the case for hearing and determination thereof, and to cause the case to be in every way expedited.

(b) Whoever shall deny or attempt to deny any person of any right secured by the twenty-sixth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(Pub. L. 89–110, title III, §301, as added Pub. L. 91–285, §6, June 22, 1970, 84 Stat. 318; amended Pub. L. 94–73, title IV, §407, Aug. 6, 1975, 89 Stat. 405.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 1973bb of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

#### Amendments

1975—Pub. L. 94–73 substituted provisions authorizing the Attorney General to institute proceedings to enforce twenty-sixth amendment, the jurisdiction of the district courts, and penalties for denial of rights secured by twenty-sixth amendment, for provisions relating to Congressional findings and prohibition of denial of right to vote on account of age.
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-277-CV

ALLAN C. TATE AND DEB TATE APPELLANTS

SPENCER

V.

LARRISON CONSTRUCTION, INC. APPELLEES

AND SAFECO INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF AMERICA

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

FROM THE 342ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

Appellants Allan C. Tate and Deb Tate Spencer filed a notice of appeal of

the trial court’s final judgment dated March 27, 2008. On January 21, 2009,

this court granted the “Motion to Withdraw As Counsel” filed by Appellants’

counsel and ordered that Appellants’ brief be due March 9, 2009. On February
2... Appellants also elected not to file an appellate brief.

2

11, 2009, Appellants, acting pro se, notified this court by a signed letter that

they “elect to not . . . pursue an appeal of this case.”2 We construe this

document as a motion to dismiss the appeal pursuant to Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1). Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). Having considered

the motion, it is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted;

therefore, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be incurred by the party incurring the same, for

which let execution issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and MCCOY, J.

DELIVERED: June 18, 2009