alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### **CHAPTER 87—EXPORT PROMOTION**

#### SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec.
5601.
Purpose.
5602.
Definitions.
5603.
Agricultural export promotion strategy.
5603a.
Global market strategy.
5604.
Preservation of traditional markets.
5605.
Independence of authorities.
5606.
Implementation of commitments under Uruguay Round Agreements.
5607.
Exporter assistance initiative.
5608.
Foreign trade missions.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—AGRICULTURAL EXPORT PROGRAMS

#### Part A—Programs

5621.
Direct credit sales program.
5622.
Export credit guarantee program.
5623.
Agricultural trade promotion and facilitation.
5624.
Barter of agricultural commodities.
5625.
Combination of programs.

#### Part B—Implementation

5641.
Funding levels.

#### SUBCHAPTER III—BARRIERS TO EXPORTS

5651.
Repealed.
5652.
Relief from unfair trade practices.
5653.
Equitable treatment of high-value and value-added United States agricultural commodities.

#### SUBCHAPTER IV—GENERAL PROVISIONS

#### Part A—Program Controls

5661.
Program controls for export programs.
5662.
Compliance provisions.
5663.
Departmental administration system.
5664.
Repealed.

#### Part B—Miscellaneous Provisions

5671.
Agricultural embargo protection.
5672.
Development of plans to alleviate adverse impact of embargoes.
5673.
Contracting authority to expand agricultural export markets.
5674.
Trade consultations concerning imports.
5675.
Technical assistance in trade negotiations.
5676.
Limitation on use of certain export promotion programs.
5677.
Trade compensation and assistance programs.
5678.
Edward R. Madigan United States Agricultural Export Excellence Award.
5679.
Biotechnology and agricultural trade program.
5680.
Repealed.

#### SUBCHAPTER V—FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE

5691.
Repealed.
5692.
Administrator of Foreign Agricultural Service.
5693.
Duties of Foreign Agricultural Service.
5694.
Staff of Foreign Agricultural Service.
5695.
Authorization of appropriations.

#### SUBCHAPTER VI—REPORTS

5711.
Repealed.
5712.
Export reporting and contract sanctity.
5713.
Repealed.

#### SUBCHAPTER VII—FOREIGN MARKET DEVELOPMENT COOPERATOR PROGRAM

5721 to 5723.
Repealed.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

The Agricultural Trade Act of 1978, comprising this chapter, was originally enacted as Pub. L. 95–501, Oct. 21, 1978, 92 Stat. 1685, which enacted sections 1707b to 1707d, 1765a to 1765h, 1769, and 2211a of this title, amended sections 1707a, 1761, 1762, 1764, 1765, and 1766b of this title and section 5314 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, redesignated sections 1762(d), (f), and 1763 as sections 1766a to 1766c of this title, and enacted provisions set out as notes under sections 612c–3, 1761, and 2211a of this title and section 2431 of Title 19, Customs Duties. The Act is shown herein, however, as having been added by Pub. L. 101–624, title XV, §1531, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3668, because of the extensive amendments, renumbering, reorganization of subject matter, and expansion of the basic Act's provisions by Pub. L. 101–624.
#### § 37.815 May the Government withhold payments?

Your TIA must provide that the administrative agreements officer may withhold payments in the circumstances described in 32 CFR 34.12(g), but not otherwise.
#### § 865.1 Setup of the Board.

The AFBCMR operates within the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force according to 10 U.S.C. 1552. The Board consists of civilians in the executive part of the Department of the Air Force who are appointed and serve at the pleasure of the Secretary of the Air Force. Three members constitute a quorum of the Board.
#### § 264.1 Purpose and cancellation.

The purpose of this part is to restate Department of Defense policy concerning the international interchange for defense purposes of patent rights and technical information. DoD Directive 2000.3, “Technical Property Interchange Agreements”, dated April 15, 1954, is hereby superseded and cancelled. Delegation published at 19 FR 2523 is cancelled.
#### Maurice Steingold, as Executor of Samuel A. Steingold, Deceased, Appellant, v. Capital Airlines, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Vickers-Armtrongs, Inc., Respondent.

In a wrongful death action by a foreign executor, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 23, 1962, which denied his motion to add his assignee as a party plaintiff, the motion having been made on the ground that under section 193 of the Civil Practice Act the assignee is an indispensable party to the action. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Xo opinion. Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill ami Rabin, JJ., concur; Beklock, P. J., concurs in the result, with the following memorandum: In my opinion: (1) a cause of action for wrongful death is not a cause of action for “personal injury” (General Construction Law, § 37-a); (2) only a cause of action l’or “personal injury” is not assignable (Personal Property Law, § 41, subd. 1); (3) a cause of action for wrongful death is a cause of action for injury to *property (Matter of Meekin*v. *Brooklyn Hgts. R. R. Co.,*164 N. Y. 145); (4) therefore, a cause of action for wrongful death is assignable. (See, also, *Matter of Fahys,*18 F. Supp. 529.) However, I concur in the result because: (a) the assignment (a copy of which appears in the papers on the assignee’s motion to intervene on this appeal, which we denied *753on March 25, 1963) is to an attorney of the “ right to sue ” and not of the cause of action itself; (b) if it were an assignment of the cause of action, the assignment being to an attorney, would be void under section 274 of the Penal Law, even if it was without consideration; and (c) if the assignee received a naked assignment of only the privilege to sue ns plaintiff in lien of the nonresident assignor, the assignee is not the real party in interest *(Broder*v. *Brasselle,*7 Misc 2d 13).
### §1329a. Discontinuance of acreage allotments on corn

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, acreage allotments and a commercial corn-producing area shall not be established for the 1959 and subsequent crops of corn.

(Feb. 16, 1938, ch. 30, title III, §330, as added Oct. 31, 1949, ch. 792, title I, §104(b)(1), as added Pub. L. 85–835, title II, §201, Aug. 28, 1958, 72 Stat. 994.)

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

#### Inapplicability of Section

Section inapplicable to 2014 through 2018 crops of covered commodities, cotton, and sugar and inapplicable to milk during period beginning Feb. 7, 2014, through Dec. 31, 2018, see section 9092(a)(1) of this title.

Section inapplicable to 2008 through 2012 crops of covered commodities, peanuts, and sugar and inapplicable to milk during period beginning June 18, 2008, through Dec. 31, 2012, see section 8782(a)(1) of this title.

Section inapplicable to 2002 through 2007 crops of covered commodities, peanuts, and sugar and inapplicable to milk during period beginning May 13, 2002, through Dec. 31, 2007, see section 7992(a)(1) of this title.

Section inapplicable to 1996 through 2001 crops of loan commodities, peanuts, and sugar and inapplicable to milk during period beginning Apr. 4, 1996, and ending Dec. 31, 2002, see section 7301(a)(1)(A) of this title.

#### 1958 Referendum for Selection of Alternative Corn Program; Operative Status of Certain Provisions

Corn producers voted for adoption of price support program as provided in section 1444a(b) of this title (254,262) rather than alternative corn acreage allotment and price support program (102,907), the ballot making operative sections 1329a and 1444b and repeal of section 1441(d)(4) of this title.
Memo to File

From: Ryan Albert

Date: 6/20/12

On June 20, 2012 EPA attended a listening session with a representative from the Canadian Ship 

Owners Association (CSA). 

Attendees are the following:

Name Affiliation

Bruce Bowie CSA

Ryan Albert EPA

Kathryn Kelley EPA 

The following topics were raised by the representative from CSA: 

- The feasibility of ballast water treatment for CSA vessels. 

- The designation of “Confined Lakers.” 

- The availability of technology and type approval process for ballast water treatment.

- Coordination between EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard on dates for implementation.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Dwight Tippins, Appellant.

On the court’s own motion, the decision handed down September 26, 1960, as amended by orders of this court dated October 31, 1960 and November 7, 1960 *(ante,*p. 490), is further amended by striking out the designation of Joseph A. Solovei, Esq., as counsel to prosecute the appeal, and by designating Anthony F. Marra, Esq., 100 Centre Street, New York 13, New York, as such counsel. The appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is further enlarged to the May Term, beginning April 24, 1961; appeal ordered on the calendar for said term. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
4/22/2015 

RIVERA, DOUGLAS WILM 

On this day, the application 

and presented to the Court. 

N3B 77720 

Abel Acosta, C~k 

DOUGLAS WILMER RIVERA 

JEFFERSON COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILIT~ 

TDC # 1760730 

P. 0. BOX 26007 

BEAUMONT, TX 77720 

UTF
§ 776.28 Conflict of interest: Former client. ( a ) A covered attorney who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client, unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.
( b ) A covered attorney who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter: ( 1 ) Use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client or to the covered attorney's own advantage, except as Subpart B of this part would permit or require with respect to a client, or when the information has become generally known; or
( 2 ) Reveal information relating to the representation except as subpart B of this part would permit or require with respect to a client.
( c ) [Reserved]
INTERNATIONAL COMFORT PRODUCTS CORPORATION
    Schedule II - Consolidated Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
        For the Years Ended December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996
                 (In Millions of U.S. Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                           Charge to 
                                          -----------    Accounts
                  Balance                                Written     Balance
                    at          Costs                    Off Net       at
                  Beginning      and                       of        End of
Description       of Period    Expenses     Other<F1>   Recoveries   Period
============================================================================
<S>                <C>         <C>          <C>         <C>         <C>
1998
(a) Allowance
    for Doubtful
    Accounts       $  6.0      $   .3       $   .3      $  (1.4)    $  5.2
============================================================================
(b)
    Product
    Warranty
      Current      $  9.5      $  1.0       $   -       $   (.8)    $  9.7
      Non-current    16.2        12.0           -         (15.0)      13.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   $ 25.7      $ 13.0       $   -       $ (15.8)    $ 22.9
============================================================================
1997
(a) Allowance
    for Doubtful
    Accounts       $  7.7      $  0.9       $  (.7)     $  (1.9)    $  6.0
============================================================================
(b)
    Product
    Warranty
      Current      $  8.7      $  1.0       $   -       $  (0.2)    $  9.5
      Non-current    17.9        10.7           .1        (12.5)      16.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   $ 26.6      $ 11.7       $   .1      $ (12.7)    $ 25.7
============================================================================
1996
(a) Allowance
    for Doubtful
    Accounts
      Current      $  7.6      $  3.2       $   .2      $  (3.3)    $  7.7
      Non-current     5.0          -            -          (5.0)        -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   $ 12.6      $  3.2       $   .2      $  (8.3)    $  7.7
===========================================================================
(b) Product
    Warranty
      Current      $  8.8      $  2.0       $   -       $  (2.1)    $  8.7
      Non-current    15.7        14.4           -         (12.2)      17.9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   $ 24.5      $ 16.4       $   -       $ (14.3)    $ 26.6
===========================================================================
</TABLE>
[FN]
<F1>
These amounts are mainly due to the effect of the change in foreign 
currency translation rates and divestitures, net of acquisitions.
</FN>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH

C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-60167

Summary Calendar

BETTYE D. WEST, Individually and on behalf

of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

FIRST ALLMERICA FINANCIAL LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(2:96-CV-454-PG)

December 23, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DAVIS and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Bettye West appeals summary jud g ment in favor of defendant First

Allmerica Financial Life Insurance Company on her personal and attempted

class action claims for employee benefits under 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. Our

review of the record, briefs, and controlling precedents persua d es that this

appeal is devoid of merit. Accordingly, on the facts as found, authorities cited,2

and analysis made by the district court in its com prehensive and scholarly

Memorandum Opinion an d Order signed and filed on March 3, 1998, the

judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.

First Allmerica has filed a general motion for attorneys fees. We note a

pending motion in the district court for the fees relevant to that cou r t’s

proceedings. Should First Allmerica desire to proceed with its general request

for attorneys fees incurred b ecause of this appeal it may file an appropriate

request therefor, with the clerk of this court, within 15 days of the issuance of

the mandate herein.

AFFIRMED.
Office of Civil Rights - Resource Management Group – Organizational Chart 

– 8/28/2022 

Graphic Version

(An accessible text version can be found on the following page.)
Accessible Text Version

Office for Civil Rights (OCR) -Resource Management Group - Organizational Structure 

• Deputy Assistant Secretary

• Program Specialist 

• Executive Officer

• Reading Assistant

• Budget and Planning Support Team

• Supervisory Budget Analyst (Budget and Planning Support Team)

• Budget Analyst – three total

• Management and Program Analyst

• Human Resources (HR) Team

• Supervisory Management and Program Analyst (HR Team)

• Management and Program Analyst – three total

• Technology and Records Management Team

• Supervisory Management and Program Analyst (Technology and Records Management Team)

• IT Analyst – eight total

• Management and Program Analyst (Records)
###### Editorial Note on Part 724

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 724 appear at 65 FR 62616, Oct. 19, 2000.

#### § 724.105 President of the NDRB.

A senior officer of the Naval Service designated by the Secretary of the Navy who is responsible for the direct supervision of the discharge review function within the Naval Service. (See subpart E).
Exhibit 32.1 

Certification

 

CERTIFICATE 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 Annual Report of UQM Technologies,Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the annual period ended March31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the "Report"), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, 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) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 2) the information contained in thereport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in theReport.

| /s/ WILLIAM G.      RANKIN 
William G. Rankin 
Chairman, President and Chief Executive      Officer                                                                                                                     
/s/ DONALD A.      FRENCH 
Donald A. French 
Treasurer, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer
Dated:  May 20, 2009 |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### Barnett Guthartz, Respondent, v City of New York et al., Appellants.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered September 8, 1977, denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment is unanimously modified, on the law, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted to the extent to dismissing the complaint, without prejudice to an application to Special Term, to be made within 30 days after the service of a copy of the order hereon, for leave to serve an amended complaint based on failure of consideration or condition, impossibility, frustration of purpose, or related grounds, and the order is otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The complaint is essentially based on alleged misrepresentations or failures by the city to perform its obligations. But these misrepresentations, even as alleged, are only promissory in nature and thus they, as well as the claims based on the other alleged promises by the city, are barred by the parol evidence rule and the "entire agreement” provision of the lease and the provision forbidding modification otherwise than in writing. There is no allegation that the city did not intend to perform its alleged promises. As to the third cause of action for reformation, no ground is shown for reformation; there is nothing to indicate that there was any mistake. Thus the complaint falls. However, there are intimations that the lease may have failed of its purpose in such sense as to relieve the plaintiff of its obligations with consequent return of his deposit; for that reason we do not bar the possibility of a claim based on that or related grounds, and for the same reason we do not grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment on its counterclaims, believing it better to await a proper pleading alleging these grounds. However, no basis is alleged in the complaint for a claim for damages either for breach of contract or misrepresentations. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Silverman, Lane and Markewich, JJ.
#### § 941.778 Permit applications—minimum requirements for legal, financial, compliance, and related information.

Part 778 of this chapter, *Permit Applications—Minimum Requirements for Legal, Financial, Compliance and Related Information,* shall apply to any person who applies for a permit to conduct surface coal mining and reclamation operations.

[52 FR 13815, Apr. 24, 1987]
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4.

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-31155 Summary Calendar

PLAQUEMINES PARISH SCHOOL BOARD Plaintiff - Appellant v. NORRIS INSURANCE CONSULTANTS INC; JOHN Z NORRIS Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:06-CV-7213
Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Plaquemines Parish School Board sued John Norris and Norris Insurance Consultants Inc. (collectively, “Norris”) after Hurricane Katrina damaged a large number of Plaquemines Parish schools. The district court granted Norris summary judgment and entered a fi nal judgment in his favor. We vacate the judgment. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 9, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-31155

2 The district court granted Norris summaryjudgment on the merits ofthe School Board’s claim after it had already denied a motion to remand by determining that Norris was not properly joined to this suit. The moment this
casewas removed tofederal court and a motion to remand was filed, it was clear that Norris and the School Board were both residents of Louisiana. As a result, it was also clear that the district court did not have jurisdiction over Norris because his presence defeated complete diversity, a pre-requisite to diversity jurisdiction. Either he was properly joined to the suit—in which case the district court did not have diversity jurisdiction over this suit since there was not complete diversity and the casewould need to be remanded tostate court—or he
was improperlyjoined—in which case the district court needed to dismiss Norris,
so that diversity jurisdiction could be asserted over the rest of the parties. See Florence v. Crescent Res., LLC, 484 F.3d 1293, 1297 (11th Cir. 2007). Either way, the district court did not havejurisdiction over Norris and therefore could not adjudicate the merits of the claim against him. Judgment VACATED. Cause REMANDED.
#### ROEHR et al., Respondents, v. WEAVER, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 16, 1903.)

Action by Edward H. M. Roehr, John T. McGovern, and Samuel W. Maguire against George C. Weaver.

No opinion. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.