alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §3310. Preference eligibles; examinations; guards, elevator operators, messengers, and custodians

In examinations for positions of guards, elevator operators, messengers, and custodians in the competitive service (other than for positions of housekeeping aides in the Department of Veterans Affairs), competition is restricted to preference eligibles as long as preference eligibles are available.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 420; Pub. L. 117–168, title IX, §905, Aug. 10, 2022, 136 Stat. 1811.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 852 (2d sentence). | June 27, 1944, ch. 287, §3 (proviso), 58 Stat. 388.Aug. 14, 1953, ch. 485, §1(a) "Sec. 3 (2d sentence)", 67 Stat. 581. |

Statutes at Large

Aug. 14, 1953, ch. 485, §1(a) "Sec. 3 (2d sentence)", 67 Stat. 581.

The words "in the competitive service" are added for clarity. The reference to "examinations held prior to December 31, 1954, for positions of apprentices" is omitted as obsolete. Application of this section to the excepted service in the executive branch and to the government of the District of Columbia, as provided in former section 858, is carried into section 3320.

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

2022—Pub. L. 117–168 inserted "(other than for positions of housekeeping aides in the Department of Veterans Affairs)" after "competitive service".
### Part A—Dairy Margin Coverage

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 115–334, title I, §1401(k)(1), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4516, substituted "Dairy Margin Coverage" for "Margin Protection Program for Dairy Producers" in part heading.
### §197. Statutory trust established; poultry

#### (a) Protection of public interest from inadequate financing arrangements

It is hereby found that a burden on and obstruction to commerce in poultry is caused by financing arrangements under which live poultry dealers encumber, give lenders security interest in, or place liens on, poultry obtained by such persons by purchase in cash sales or by poultry growing arrangements, or on inventories of or receivables or proceeds from such poultry or poultry products therefrom, when payment is not made for the poultry and that such financing arrangements are contrary to the public interest. This section is intended to remedy such burden on and obstruction to commerce in poultry and protect the public interest.

#### (b) Poultry, inventories, receivables and proceeds held by dealer in trust for benefit of unpaid cash sellers or poultry growers

All poultry obtained by a live poultry dealer, by purchase in cash sales or by poultry growing arrangement, and all inventories of, or receivables or proceeds from such poultry or poultry products derived therefrom, shall be held by such live poultry dealer in trust for the benefit of all unpaid cash sellers or poultry growers of such poultry, until full payment has been received by such unpaid cash sellers or poultry growers, unless such live poultry dealer does not have average annual sales of live poultry, or average annual value of live poultry obtained by purchase or by poultry growing arrangement, in excess of $100,000.

#### (c) Effect of dishonored instruments

Payment shall not be considered to have been made if the cash seller or poultry grower receives a payment instrument which is dishonored.

#### (d) Preservation of trust benefit by seller or poultry grower

The unpaid cash seller or poultry grower shall lose the benefit of such trust if, in the event that a payment instrument has not been received, within 30 days of the final date for making payment under section 228b–1 of this title, or within 15 business days after the seller or poultry grower has received notice that the payment instrument promptly presented for payment has been dishonored, the seller or poultry grower has not preserved his trust under this section. The trust shall be preserved by giving written notice to the live poultry dealer and by filing such notice with the Secretary.

#### (e) Definition of cash sale

For the purpose of this section, a cash sale means a sale in which the seller does not expressly extend credit to the buyer.

(Aug. 15, 1921, ch. 64, title II, §207, as added Pub. L. 100–173, §4, Nov. 23, 1987, 101 Stat. 918.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 90 days after Nov. 23, 1987, see section 12 of Pub. L. 100–173, set out as an Effective Date of 1987 Amendment note under section 182 of this title.
#### ROBBINS v. FREEMAN

No. 416PA97

Case below: 127 N.C.App. 162

Motion by Attorney General for temporary stay allowed 28 August 1997.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Ecological effects of stockedtrout in naturally fishless high mountain lakes, North Cacades National ParkService Complex, WA, USA [electronic resource]**
 
Parts: 0102
 
SuDoc Number:I 29.109:NPS/PNROSU/NRTR-95-03
Item Number:0648-K (online)
CGP systemNumber:000879219
 
August 27, 2019
#### SISSON, Respondent, v. IRISH, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

January 20, 1903.)

Action by William 6. Sisson against George J. Irish.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and ■disbursements.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 Certificate pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (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/ Glen R. GilbertName:
    
    Glen R. GilbertTitle:
    
    Chief Financial OfficerDate:
    
    March 14, 2007
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 ORION
DIVERSIFIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Orion Diversified Technologies, Inc. on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended July 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 22, 2005 (the "Report"), the undersigned,
in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, each hereby 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 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 Orion Diversified
Technologies, Inc.
 
 Date:
September 22, 2005
 
 /s/
Irwin Pearl________
 Chief
Executive Officer
 
 Date:
September 22, 2005
 
 /s/
Irwin Pearl________
 Chief
Financial Officer
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsIMCS reflight certification requirements and design specificationsThe requirements for reflight certification are established. Software requirements encompass the software programs that are resident in the PCC, DEP, PDSS, EC, or any related GSE. A design approach for the reflight software packages is recommended. These designs will be of sufficient detail to permit the implementation of reflight software. The PDSS/IMC Reflight Certification system provides the tools and mechanisms for the user to perform the reflight certification test procedures, test data capture, test data display, and test data analysis. The system as defined will be structured to permit maximum automation of reflight certification procedures and test data analysis.Document ID19840009099Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateJanuary 10, 1984Subject CategoryAircraft Communications And NavigationReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:170968IR-AL-016NASA-CR-170968Accession Number84N17167Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS8-33825Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840009099.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
### §§1821 to 1824. Repealed. Pub. L. 89–321, title VI, §601, Nov. 3, 1965, 79 Stat. 1206

Section 1821, act May 28, 1956, ch. 327, title I, §103, 70 Stat. 189, authorized Secretary to carry out acreage reserve program and spelled out terms of eligibility, provisions of contract, and acreage reduction compensation.

Section 1822, act May 28, 1956, ch. 327, title I, §104, 70 Stat. 190, required Secretary to establish a national reserve acreage goal and to set limits to be placed upon individual participation in program.

Section 1823, act May 28, 1956, ch. 327, title I, §105, 70 Stat. 190, established method of compensating producers for participating in program through issuance of negotiable certificates redeemable by Commodity Credit Corporation, provided for setting of rates of compensation, and set limits upon total compensation to be paid for wheat, cotton, corn, peanuts, rice, and tobacco.

Section 1824, act May 28, 1956, ch. 327, title I, §106, 70 Stat. 191, required crediting of reserve acreages as though such acreages had actually been devoted to production of commodity when establishing farm acreage allotments under Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended.

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

#### Savings Provision

Pub. L. 89–321, title VI, §601, Nov. 3, 1965, 79 Stat. 1206, provided that the Soil Bank Act of 1956 [former subchapters I to III of this chapter] shall remain in effect with respect to contracts entered into thereunder prior to its repeal by section 601 of Pub. L. 89–321.
§ 766.12 Unauthorized landings. An aircraft that lands at a Navy/Marine Corps aviation facility without obtaining prior permission from an approving authority, except in a bona fide emergency, is in violation of this part. Civil aircraft landing in violation of this regulation will have to pay the fee prescribed in § 766.11(b). In those cases where an unauthorized landing is made at a facility within a Naval Defense Area, proclaimed as such by Executive order of the President, civil aircraft may be impounded and the operator prosecuted as indicated in OPNAVINST 5500.11C of November 12, 1963. In any event, before the aircraft is authorized to depart, the commanding officer of the facility will: ( a ) Inform the aircraft operator of the provisions of this part and the OP NAVINST 5500.11C of November 12, 1963, if applicable.
( b ) Require the aircraft operator (or owner), before takeoff, to pay all fees and charges and to comply with the following procedure: ( 1 ) Execute OPNAV Form 3770/1, explaining in item 6 of that form the reason for the landing.
( 2 ) In lieu of submitting a Certificate of Insurance (NAVFAC 7-11011/36), the insurer must furnish evidence of sufficient insurance to include waiver of any right of subrogation against the United States, and that such insurance applies to the liability assumed by the insured under OPNAV Form 3770/1.
( 3 ) When it appears that the violation may have been deliberate, or is a repeated violation, departure authorization must be obtained from the Chief of Naval Operations.
( 4 ) Waiver of the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section may be obtained from the Chief of Naval Operations to expedite removal of these aircraft when such waiver is considered appropriate.
[35 FR 14451, Sept. 15, 1970, as amended at 51 FR 22804, June 23, 1986]
§ 552.99 Applicability. ( a ) The provisions of this regulation apply to all Department of Defense (DOD) military; civilian personnel; U.S. Army Reserve/National Guard (USAR/NG) personnel on post for active duty training or inactive training in conjunction with Active Army elements, military family members; civilians employed on, visiting, or traveling through or on the Fort Stewart/Hunter AAF installation.
( b ) This regulation will not become void in its entirety merely because one part or portion thereof is declared unconstitutional or void.
( c ) This regulation is punitive, Military violators of the regulations may be prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or may be subject to administrative action. Civilian violators may be subject to administrative or judicial action under title 18, United States Code, or title 16, Criminal Code of Georgia.
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 Escalade, Incorporated (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending July 11, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert J. Keller, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the Company.

|                         | 
|------------------------ | 
|/s/ Robert
 J. Keller    | 
|                         | 
|Chief
 Executive Officer | 
|August 10,
 2009         | 

---
§ 634.36 Detection, apprehension, and testing of intoxicated drivers. ( a ) Law enforcement personnel usually detect drivers under the influence of alcohol or other drugs by observing unusual or abnormal driving behavior. Drivers showing such behavior will be stopped immediately. The cause of the unusual driving behavior will be determined, and proper enforcement action will be taken.
( b ) When a law enforcement officer reasonably concludes that the individual driving or in control of the vehicle is impaired, field sobriety tests should be conducted on the individual. The DD Form 1920 may be used by law enforcement agencies in examining, interpreting, and recording results of such tests. Law enforcement personnel should use a standard field sobriety test (such as one-leg stand or walk and turn) horizontal gaze nystagmus tests as sanctioned by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, and screening breath-testing devices to conduct field sobriety tests.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andre Simmons, Appellant.

[834 NYS2d 112]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J.), rendered November 15, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 18 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s application made pursuant to *Batson v Kentucky*(476 US 79 [1986]). Defendant did not produce “evidence sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference that discrimination ha[d] occurred” *(Johnson v California,*545 US 162, 170 [2005]), and thus failed to make a prima facie showing of racial discrimination in the People’s exercise of their peremptory challenges. Defendant’s argument is based entirely on an alleged disparity between the People’s pattern of peremptory challenges and the pattern that would be “expected,” given the racial composition of the available panel of prospective jurors. However, this argument is unreviewable because defendant failed to make any record of the racial makeup of the panel, which was his responsibility to make *(see People v Kinchen,*60 NY2d 772 [1983]). Instead, defendant seeks to fill in this gap with speculative assumptions about his own exercise of peremptory challenges, which we find unpersuasive. In any event, even if we were to accept defendant’s assertions regarding his own challenges and calculate the racial composition of the panel accordingly, and even if we were to employ defendant’s mode of analysis, we would still find that he has not shown a statistically significant disparity so as to raise an inference of discrimination *(see Castaneda v Partida,*430 US 482, *289496 n 17 [1977]). To the extent that defendant is challenging the standard used by the trial court in determining that there was no prima facie case of discrimination, such claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Concur—Tom, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.
§ 536.46 Other exclusions. ( a ) *Statutory employer.* A claim is not payable under any subpart if it is for personal injury or death of any contract employee for whom benefits are provided under any workers' compensation law, if the provisions of the workers' compensation insurance are retrospective and charge an allowable expense to a cost-type contract, or if precluded by state law. See Federal Tort Claims Handbook (FTCH), section II, D7 (posted on the Web at *https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/laawsxxi/cds.nsf .* Select the link “Claims” under “JAG Publications.”) The statutory employer exclusion also applies to claims that may be covered by the Defense Bases Act, 42 U.S.C. 1651-1654.
( b ) *Flood exclusion.* Within the United States a claim is not payable if it arises from damage caused by flood or flood waters associated with the construction or operation of a COE flood control project, 33 U.S.C. 702(c). See DA Pam 27-162, paragraph 2-40.
( c ) *ARNG property.* A claim is not payable under any subpart if it is for damage to, or loss of, property of a state, commonwealth, territory, or the District of Columbia caused by ARNG personnel, engaged in training or duty under 32 U.S.C. 316, 502, 503, 504, or 505, who are assigned to a unit maintained by that state, commonwealth, territory, or the District of Columbia. See DA Pam 27-162, paragraph 2-41.
( d ) *Federal Disaster Relief Act.* Within the United States a claim is not payable if it is for damage to, or loss of, property or for personal injury or death arising out of debris removal by a federal agency or employee in carrying out the provisions of the Federal Disaster Relief Act, 42 U.S.C. 5173. See DA Pam 27-162, paragraph 2-42.
( e ) *Non-justiciability doctrine.* A claim is not payable under any subpart if it arises from activities that present a non-justiciable political question. See DA Pam 27-162, paragraph 2-43.
( f ) *National Vaccine Act. ( 42 U.S.C. 300aa-1 through 300aa-7 ).* A claim is not payable under any subpart if it arises from the administration of a vaccine unless the conditions listed in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (42 U.S.C. 300aa-9 through 300aa-19) have been met. See DA Pam 27-162, paragraph 2-17c(6)(a).
( g ) *Defense Mapping Agency.* A claim is not payable under any subpart if it arises from inaccurate charting by the Defense Mapping Agency, 10 U.S.C. 456. See FTCH section II, B4s (Web address at paragraph (a) of this section).
( h ) *Quiet Title Act.* Within the U.S., a claim is not payable if it falls under the Quiet Title Act 28 U.S.C. 2409a.
( i ) *Defense Bases Act.* A claim arising outside the United States is not payable if it is covered by the Defense Bases Act, 42 U.S.C. 1651-1654.
Note to § 536.46 :
See parallel discussion at DA Pam 27-162, paragraphs 2-40 through 2-43.
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 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy Carolinas) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James E. Rogers, Chief
Executive Officer of Duke Energy Carolinas, 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 Duke Energy Carolinas.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/    JAMES E. ROGERS 
|James E. Rogers        
|Chief Executive Officer
|November 13, 2007
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23

                CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(S-8 number 33-82204) and related Prospectus pertaining to the Amended and
Restated 1989 Stock Option Plan for Officers and Key Employees, as amended, and
in the Registration Statement (S-8 number 48543) and related Prospectus
pertaining to the 1992 Non-Officer Directors Stock Option Plan, of PacifiCare
Health Systems, Inc. of our report dated November 18, 1996 with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of PacifiCare Health Systems,
Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended September 30,
1996.



                                        ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Los Angeles, California
December 12, 1996
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 5, 2014

No. 04-14-00105-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF BILLYE M. HORMUTH, Deceased,

From the Probate Court No 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-PC-4120

Honorable Tom Rickhoff, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

The panel has considered the appellee’s motion for reconsideration, and the motion is 

DENIED.

_________________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

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

court on this 5th day of December, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 15.7**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-111310) of Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. of our report dated March 10, 2003, with respect to the consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity and cash flows of DEP Technology Holdings Ltd. and its subsidiary for the year ended December 31, 2002, which report appears in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2004.

 

 

| /s/          Somekh ChaikinCertified Public Accountants (Isr.)A member of KPMG International |   |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                                                                              |   |   |        |
| Tel-Aviv, IsraelJuly 12, 2005                                                                |   |   |   |

 

 

----