alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §2353. Testimony in Plant Variety Protection Office cases

The Secretary may establish regulations for taking affidavits, depositions, and other evidence required in cases before the Plant Variety Protection Office. Any officer authorized by law to take depositions to be used in the courts of the United States, or of the State where the officer resides, may take such affidavits and depositions, and swear the witnesses. If any person acts as a hearing officer by authority of the Secretary, the person shall have like power.

(Pub. L. 91–577, title I, §23, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1544; Pub. L. 103–349, §13(c), Oct. 6, 1994, 108 Stat. 3143.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–349 substituted "the officer" for "he" in second sentence and "the person" for "he" in third sentence.

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

#### Effective Date of 1994 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 103–349 effective 180 days after Oct. 6, 1994, see section 15 of Pub. L. 103–349, set out as a note under section 2401 of this title.
### §1316. Repealed. Pub. L. 108–357, title VI, §611(p), Oct. 22, 2004, 118 Stat. 1523

Section, Pub. L. 89–321, title VII, §703, Nov. 3, 1965, 79 Stat. 1210; Pub. L. 91–284, §6, June 19, 1970, 84 Stat. 314; Pub. L. 97–218, title II, §205(b), July 20, 1982, 96 Stat. 206, related to transfer of allotments subsequent to 1965.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal applicable to the 2005 and subsequent crops of tobacco, see section 643 of Pub. L. 108–357, set out as an Effective Date note under section 518 of this title.

#### Savings Provision

Repeal not to affect the liability of any person under this section with respect to the 2004 or an earlier crop of tobacco, see section 614 of Pub. L. 108–357, set out as a note under section 515 of this title.
Appeal No. 74-213.

#### Susan Surabian *v.*Allstate Insurance Company *et al.*

*Higgins & Slattery, Robert J. Dumouchel,*for plaintiff. *John G. Carroll, Quentin J. Geary,*for defendant Allstate Insurance Company. ,

Motion of Susan Surabian to dismiss the appeal without prejudice is granted. See *Giarrusso*v. *Corrigan,*108 R. I. 471, 276 A.2d 750 (1971).

Paolino, J. not participating.
(October 6, 1964)

#### In the Matter of Donald L. Ross, Respondent, v. Theodore H. Lang et al., Constituting the Department of Personnel, Civil Service Commission of the City of New York, Appellants.

Order entered October 16, 1963, in proceeding brought pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act (now CPLR), granting petitioner’s application, vacating and annulling the determination by the Civil Service Commission of the City of New York that petitioner was disqualified, directing that petitioner be marked qualified for the position of Patrolman, Police Department, City of New York, and restoring his name on the eligible list for such position, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellants, the application denied, and the petition dismissed. There has been no showing that petitioner was entitled to a hearing as a matter of law, although on the last administrative appeal he received one (ef. Rules and Regulations of the Classified Civil Service of the Civil Service Commission of the City of N. Y., rule 4.3.5 [b]; Civil Service Law, § 50, subd. 4). Consequently, the test is not the sufficiency of the evidence under the substantial evidence rule. Moreover, the petition attacks the determination only on the basis that it is arbitrary and capricious. It cannot be said that respondents’ action was arbitrary or capricious, or, for that matter, that there was an absence of substantial evidence that petitioner willfully suppressed the evidence as to his need for eyeglasses. The facts out of which petitioner received a summons in a criminal proceeding also supplied a reasonable basis, in combination with the other findings, to sustain the administrative action of the commission. While the notice to petitioner, dated November 5, 1962, did not make explicit and specific the personality characteristics of petitioner upon which the commission also based its" action, the notice covered the underlying matters, and the hearing reveals that petitioner was in complete understanding of all the issues raised. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
Exhibit 10.2
  
   Salary:
 2008 Incentive Compensation:
 Benefits:
 Vacation Pay & Date of Transition of Employment Status:
 Retirement and Stock Purchase Plans:




---



##### 



Page Two
Mr. James Childress
May 1, 2008
  Restricted Stock and Stock Options:
  Non-Competition:
 Participation in Certain Organizations:
 Return of Assets:
 Other Agreements:




---



##### 



Page Three
Mr. James Childress
May 1, 2008
    EMS Technologies, Inc.
 
  Accepted By:
    
    /s/ James S. Childress
    
    Date:
    
    May 1, 2008
### §§1651 to 1656. Repealed. Pub. L. 106–224, title IV, §438(a)(7), June 20, 2000, 114 Stat. 454

Section 1651, act July 14, 1952, ch. 721, §2, 66 Stat. 597, set forth Federal Government policy to control, suppress, and eradicate the poisonous weed Halogeton glomeratus.

Section 1652, act July 14, 1952, ch. 721, §3, 66 Stat. 598, set forth provisions relating to authority of Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior and requiring consent prior to conducting measures and operations to control, suppress, or eradicate the weed.

Section 1653, act July 14, 1952, ch. 721, §4, 66 Stat. 598, authorized discretionary expenditure of funds and acceptance of voluntary and uncompensated services of Federal, State, and local employees.

Section 1654, act July 14, 1952, ch. 721, §5, 66 Stat. 598, gave Secretaries discretion to require contributions by States as prerequisites to making Federal expenditures.

Section 1655, act July 14, 1952, ch. 721, §6, 66 Stat. 598, authorized appropriations and set forth provisions relating to their use.

Section 1656, act July 14, 1952, ch. 721, §7, 66 Stat. 599, set forth provisions relating to extent of authority of this chapter.

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

#### Short Title

Act July 14, 1952, ch. 721, §1, 66 Stat. 597, which provided that this chapter could be cited as the "Halogeton Glomeratus Control Act", was repealed by Pub. L. 106–224, title IV, §438(a)(7), June 20, 2000, 114 Stat. 454.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Twenty Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David J. Noble, Chairman/Director and Principal 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    David J. NobleDavid J. NobleChairman/DirectorAnd Principal Executive OfficerAugust 12, 2005Date
#### Raymond R. Ryan et al., Respondents. v State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 58113.)

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs, for the reasons expressed in the decision at Trial Court, Lowery, J. (Appeal from judgment of Court of Claims-appropriation.) Present-Marsh, P. J., Moule, Dillon, Schnepp and Witmer, JJ.
No. 682.

#### J. B. Pollard *v.*United States.

March 8, 1920.

*Mr. William H. Atwell*for petitioner.

*Mr. Assistant Attorney General Stewart*and *Mr. H. S. Ridgely*for the United States.

Petition for a writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Marcial Rosado, Appellant.

Judgment of conviction unanimously reversed on the law and on the facts and information dismissed. Defendant was convicted on the charge of the storing fireworks without a permit contrary to subdivision b *783of section CltMl.O of the Administrative Code of the City of New York. The supporting facts are that defendant had a starter’s pistol in the glove compartment of his ear and that there were two blank cartridges in the chamber. Assuming that these blank cartridges were fireworks in the meaning of the Administrative Code, the facts do not constitute a storing. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Tálente, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

LARRY ROBERTS

, 1

Petitioner Below,

Appellant,

v.

KASSIE ROBERTS

,

Respondent Below

, Appellee

. § No

. 389, 2018

§

§ Court Below

— Family Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§

§ File No. CN07

- 02922

§ Petition Nos. 17

- 35828

§ 17

- 35905

§

§

Submitted: April 12 , 2019

Decided: May 21 , 2019

Before STRINE , Chief Justice; SEITZ and TRAYNOR

, Justices.

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal , the Court

has concluded that the judgment of the Family Court should be affirmed for the

reasons stated in its June 27, 2018 decision denying the appellant’s motion to modify

visitation with his child (born January 11, 2002)

. A parent’s right to visitation is “an

important, natural and legal right; however, it is not an absolute right but one which

must yield to the good of the child.” 2 The Family Court did not abuse its discretion

by concluding that the best interest factors set forth in 13 Del. C. § 722(a) weighed

1 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).

2 Winter v. Charles , 1992 WL 53404 (Del. Feb. 3, 1992) (internal quotations omitted).2

in favor of maintaining the visitation arrangement set forth in the court’s August 1,

2016 order, nor by giving great wei ght to the wishes of the sixteen

- year

- old child

concerning visitation with her father

.

N OW, TH EREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor

Justice
# 2013 Congressional Action
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000315999
<NAME> 0
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         407,257
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,484,222
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (100,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    274,159
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,092,485
<PP&E>                                         709,139
<DEPRECIATION>                               (460,605)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,344,698
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,095,453
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       487,291
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     761,954
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,344,698
<SALES>                                      8,006,417
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,006,417
<CGS>                                        4,593,041
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,593,041
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,518,522
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (88,701)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (88,701)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (88,701)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20202

TO: The Assistant Secretary

Office of Postsecondary Education

FROM: The Secretary

SUBJECT: Amendment No. 2 to Delegation of Programmatic Authority

I. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

Under the authority vested in me by section 412 of the Department of Education 

Organization Act, 20 U.S.C. § 3472, I hereby delegate to you, your successor in 

function, and anyone serving for you in an acting capacity or delegated to 

perform the functions and duties of your position, the programmatic authorities 

described below:

authority with respect to the administration of the programs authorized under 

section 314 of the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental 

Appropriations (CRRSA) Act, 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-260 (December 27, 

2020) and section 2003 of the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act of 2021, 

Pub. L. No. 117-2 (March 11, 2021)

Unless otherwise noted in future delegations of authority, amendments to the 

authorities delegated herein are included within the scope of this delegation.

II. RESERVATIONS

Unless otherwise noted in existing or future delegations of authority, the following 

are not delegated:

A. the authority to sign documents for publication in the Federal Register other 

than those documents designated in the blanket delegation of authority to 

sign Federal Register documents issued to Principal Officers, EA/GEN/19, 

certified on July 9, 2021;

B. the authority to appoint, and fix compensation of, members of advisory 

councils; and

C. unless otherwise provided by law, the authority to submit reports to 

Congress or the President.
III. REDELEGATION

Subject to applicable provisions of law, and unless otherwise noted, you may 

redelegate any of the authorities delegated to you and may authorize further 

redelegation. All redelegations must be prepared in accordance with the 

Administrative Communications System directive, OM:1-102: Delegations of 

Authority, dated August 26, 2016.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification by the Department’s Principal 

Delegations Control Officer.

I hereby ratify actions within the scope of this delegation taken by the 

addressee prior to the date of certification.

/s

 Miguel A. Cardona, Ed.D.

OGC Clearance and Date: Michael Taylor, 10/21/2021

Date Certified: 10/22/2021

Control Number: EA/EP/400

Departmental Delegations Control Officer: Jim Clemmens
### §§2502, 2503. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–349, §8(a), Oct. 6, 1994, 108 Stat. 3140

Section 2502, Pub. L. 91–577, title II, §92, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1553, related to priority contest.

Section 2503, Pub. L. 91–577, title II, §93, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1553; Pub. L. 96–574, §18, Dec. 22, 1980, 94 Stat. 3351, related to effect of adverse final judgment or of nonaction.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective 180 days after Oct. 6, 1994, see section 15 of Pub. L. 103–349, set out as an Effective Date of 1994 Amendment note under section 2401 of this title.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                           18020
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    19287
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1070
<INVENTORY>                                       9610
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 49862
<PP&E>                                           91916
<DEPRECIATION>                                   55079
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   95496
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            10598
<BONDS>                                            373
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         53125
<OTHER-SE>                                      120072
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     95496
<SALES>                                          37896
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 37896
<CGS>                                            27020
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    27020
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  7414
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  18
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   3730
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1390
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               2340
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2340
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .14
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------

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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Escalade, Incorporated (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending July 15, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Terry
D. Frandsen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/ TERRY D. FRANDSEN
--------------------------------
Terry D. Frandsen
Chief Financial Officer


March 9, 2007


                                       23
Filed 5/20/15 P. v. Sherman CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

WILLIE C. SHERMAN,

Defendant and Appellant. B260007

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA048295)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Supe rior Court of Los Angeles County. William C. Ryan, Ju dge. Affirmed.

Kathleen Caverly, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No response by Respondent.

__________ ___________2 In 2002, defendant was convicted, by guilty plea, of one coun t of second-degree robbery. He was sentenced to 25 years to life under the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (b)-(i), 1170.12), as he had suffered three prior robbery convictions. On January 8, 2014, defendant file d a petition for recall of sentence and resentencing pursuant to Penal Code secti on 1170.126. The court appointed counsel for defendant. Defendant stipulated that hi s petition could be heard by Judge Ryan. Judge Ryan denied the petition with prejud ice on the basis that defendant’s current offense – robbery – was a violent felony (P en. Code, § 667.5, subd. (c)(9)), rendering defendant statutorily ineligible for resenten cing. (Pen. Code, § 11 70.126, subd. (e)(1).) Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. The denial of a resentencing petition on the

basis that the defendant is in eligible for resentencing is an appealable order. ( Teal v. Superior Court (2014) 60 Cal.4th 595, 596.) On March 17, 2015, defendant’s appoin ted counsel filed a brief pursuant to People

v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ) in which no issues we re raised. The brief

included a declaration from counsel that sh e had reviewed the record and had sent defendant a letter advising him of her intention to file a Wende brief and that he could file a supplemental brief if he chose to do so. That same day, this court sent defendant a letter advising him that a Wende brief had been filed and that he had 30 days to submit a brief or letter raising any issues he wished th is court to consider. Defendant did not file a supplemental brief.

We have examined the entire record and ar e satisfied that defendant’s attorney has fully complied with her re sponsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. ( Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) By the plain language of Penal Code section 1170.126, defendant was ineligible for resentencing, and his petition was properly denied.3 DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

RUBIN, ACTING P. J. WE CONCUR:

FLIER, J.

GRIMES, J.
§ 989.18 Scoping. ( a ) After publication of the NOI for an EIS, the EPF must initiate the public scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7) to determine the scope of issues to be addressed and to help identify significant environmental issues to be analyzed in depth. Methods of scoping range from soliciting written comments to conducting public scoping meetings (see 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1506.6(e)). The scoping process is an iterative, pro-active process of communicating with individual citizens, neighborhood, community, and local leaders, public interest groups, congressional delegations, state, Tribal, and local governments, and federal agencies. The scoping process must start prior to official public scoping meetings and continue through to preparation of the draft EIS. The purpose of this process is to de-emphasize insignificant issues and focus the scope of the environmental analysis on significant issues (40 CFR 1500.4(g)). Additionally, scoping allows early and more meaningful participation by the public. The result of scoping is that the proponent and EPF determine the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered in the EIS (40 CFR 1508.25). The EPF must send scripts for scoping meetings to HQ USAF/A7CI (or ANGRC/CEV) no later than 30 days before the first scoping meeting. Scoping meeting plans are similar in content to public hearing plans (see appendix C). Public scoping meetings should generally be held at locations not on the installation.
( b ) Where it is anticipated the proposed action and its alternatives will have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations or low-income populations, special efforts shall be made to reach these populations. This might include special informational meetings or notices in minority and low-income areas concerning the regular scoping process.
[64 FR 38129, July 15, 1999, as amended at 66 FR 16868, Mar. 28, 2001; 66 FR 26793, May 15, 2001; 72 FR 37106, July 9, 2007]
**EXHIBIT 13.3**

**  **

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated March 2, 2016, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Avino Silver & Gold Mines Ltd. included in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Avino Silver & Gold Mines Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2015 and to the Company's Registration Statements on Form S-8 (SEC File No.: 333-195120) and Forms F-3 (SEC File Nos.: 333-193471 and 333-195144).

  

*/s/ Manning Elliott LLP*

 

Vancouver, Canada

 

 

April 7, 2016