alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 310.3 Requesting access to records. ( a ) Individuals may request access to records in a system of records or request to be notified if a system of records contains records pertaining to them by writing to or appearing in person before the DoD Component that maintains the record. Written requests should be sent to the address listed in the record access procedures of the system of records notice (SORN) containing the record requested. If the name of the system of records or the address for the DoD Component that has the record is unknown, the individual may look up the SORN or the contact information for the DoD Component Privacy Office at *http://www.defense.gov/privacy .*
( b ) For access to the Official Personnel Files of federal civilian employees, which are maintained in the custody of the Department under the authority of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) SORN OPM/GOVT-1, individuals must contact their DoD Component FOIA Requester Service Center. Contact information for DoD Component FOIA Requester Service Centers can be found at *https://www.foia.gov/report-makerequest.html .*
( c ) Requesters should provide their full name, current address and email address, and when requested in the access procedures of the applicable SORN, date of birth, place of birth, and telephone number, to assist the DoD Component in responding to the request and providing released records to the requester. The requester must sign the request and have it notarized or submit the request under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits unsworn statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. To assist with the identification and location of requested records, when requested in the access procedures of the applicable SORN, the requester may also, at his or her option, include his or her DoD Identification Number (DoD ID Number) or Social Security Number (SSN). Providing a DoD ID Number or SSN should be appropriate for the type of record being sought.
( d ) When making a request for access to records as the parent or guardian for an individual who is a minor or for an individual who is determined by a court to be incompetent, the parent/guardian must establish: ( 1 ) The identity of the individual who is the subject of the record;
( 2 ) The parent/guardian's own identity;
( 3 ) That the requester is the parent or guardian of that individual, which may be proven by providing a copy of the individual's birth certificate showing parentage or a court order establishing the guardianship; and
( 4 ) That the parent or guardian is acting on behalf of the individual in making the request.
( e ) Members of the Military Services and married persons are not considered minors, regardless of age.
#### COWAN v. DE HART.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 6, 1903.)

1. Sale—Breach op Contract—Damages.

The measure of damages for breach of contract to purchase stock at a certain time and price is the agreed price, the seller electing to sue for the price and hold the stock for the purchaser.

2. Same—Tender.

The complaint in an action for breach of contract to purchase stock being consistent with the seller’s election to sue for the price and hold the stock for the purchaser, no tender is necessary.

3. Same—Variance.

The mere denomination by plaintiff, in his testimony in an action for ■breach of a written contract to purchase, of the transaction leading to the agreement as a loan, does not constitute a variance.

Appeal from City Court ,of New York.

Action by Joseph J. Cowan against George De Hart. From a judgment on a verdict directed for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and BLANCHARD, JJ.

George Hahn, for appellant.

Denis A. Spellissy, for respondent.

BISCHOFF, J.

The action was upon a written agreement to purchase stock for a stated price at a day certain, and, the defendant’s failure to purchase being admitted by the answer, the plaintiff’s right to judgment depended upon proof of the agreement. This was proven by the instrument, itself, and there is no suggestion in the record that any question of fact was deemed to arise as to the fact of the agreement. With the agreement and its breach established, the damages were measured by the agreed price of the stock, the plaintiff having elected to sue for the price, and to hold the stock for the vendee. Moore v. Potter, 155 N. Y. 481, 50 N. E. 271, 63 Am. St. Rep: 692. The form of the complaint is consistent with this election, and thus no tender was necessary after the breach of the contract to purchase. The cause of action was proven directly in accord with the pleading, *577and the fact that the plaintiff, in his testimony, denominated the transaction leading to" the agreement as a loan, does not alter the cause of action—itself upon the agreement—nor import a variance between the pleading and the proof. No ground for reversal, therefore, is presented by anything to which our attention is directed upon this appeal, and no substantial reason for an appeal is indicated.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
#### §§ 719.113-719.114 [Reserved]
#### Electronic Communications, Inc., Appellant, v. E. C. I. Electronics Communications, Inc., Respondent.

In an action to restrain the use of the defendant’s corporate name and trade-mark, and for related relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated July 30,1963, which denied its motion to restrain such use during the pendency of the action. Order affirmed, without costs *(Barricini, Inc.*v. *Barricini Shoes,*1 A D 2d 905). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-06-00190-CR

Jeffrey Edwin Prewitt, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 403RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 3011512, HONORABLE FRANK W. BRYAN, JR., JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Jeffrey Edwin Prewitt seeks to appeal from a judgment of conviction for murder. The

trial court has certified that this is a plea bargain case and Prewitt has no right of appeal. See Tex.

R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The appeal is dismissed. See id. rule 25.2(d).

__________________________________________

G. Alan Waldrop, Justice

Before Justices B. A. Smith, Puryear and Waldrop

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: April 7, 2006

Do Not Publish
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6511

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ROBERT MOSES WILKERSON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (5:96-cr-00167-H-1)

Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 29, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Moses Wilkerson, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. 

May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Moses Wilkerson appeals the district court’s order 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for sentence 

reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, 

as well as its order denying Wilkerson’s motion for 

reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and agree with the 

district court that Amendment 782 did not alter Wilkerson’s 

Guidelines range on his narcotics conviction. Thus, we affirm 

the district court’s order denying § 3582(c)(2) relief. See

United States v. Wilkerson, No. 5:96-cr-00167-H-1 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 

14, 2016). 

In addition, the district court lacked authority to 

reconsider its order denying Wilkerson’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. 

See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir. 

2010). Accordingly, we also affirm the district court’s order 

denying Wilkerson’s motion for reconsideration. See United 

States v. Wilkerson, No. 5:96-cr-00167-H-1 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 30, 

2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional 

process. 

AFFIRMED
### §2422. Content of application

An application for a certificate recognizing plant variety rights shall contain:

(1) The name of the variety except that a temporary designation will suffice until the certificate is to be issued. The variety shall be named in accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary.

(2) A description of the variety setting forth its distinctiveness, uniformity, and stability and a description of the genealogy and breeding procedure, when known. The Secretary may require amplification, including the submission of adequate photographs or drawings or plant specimens, if the description is not adequate or as complete as is reasonably possible, and submission of records or proof of ownership or of allegations made in the application. An applicant may add to or correct the description at any time, before the certificate is issued, upon a showing acceptable to the Secretary that the revised description is retroactively accurate. Courts shall protect others from any injustice which would result. The Secretary may accept records of the breeder and of any official seed certifying agency in this country as evidence of stability where applicable.

(3) A statement of the basis of the claim of the applicant that the variety is new.

(4) A declaration that a viable sample of basic seed (including any propagating material) necessary for propagation of the variety will be deposited and replenished periodically in a public repository in accordance with regulations to be established hereunder.

(5) A statement of the basis of applicant's ownership.

(Pub. L. 91–577, title II, §52, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1548; Pub. L. 96–574, §11, Dec. 22, 1980, 94 Stat. 3350; Pub. L. 103–349, §4, Oct. 6, 1994, 108 Stat. 3139.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1994—Par. (1). Pub. L. 103–349, §4(1), inserted at end "The variety shall be named in accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary."

Par. (2). Pub. L. 103–349, §4(2), in first sentence substituted "distinctiveness, uniformity, and stability" for "novelty".

Par. (3). Pub. L. 103–349, §4(4), added par. (3). Former par. (3) redesignated (4).

Par. (4). Pub. L. 103–349, §4(3), (5), redesignated par. (3) as (4) and inserted "(including any propagating material)" after "basic seed". Former par. (4) redesignated (5).

Par. (5). Pub. L. 103–349, §4(3), redesignated par. (4) as (5).

1980—Par. (3). Pub. L. 96–574 struck out provisions relating to adding of declaration by amendment.

#### **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.
#### STATE FARM LIFE INS. CO. v. ALLISON

No. 13P98

Case below: 128 N.CApp. 74
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-15-00518-CR

____________________

JOHNATHAN LIVINGSTON GREER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_________________________________ ______________________ 

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 13-16614

____________________________________________ ____________ 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Johnathan Livingston Greer1 pleaded 

guilty to burglary of a habitation. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to 

substantiate Greer’s guilt, deferred further proceedings, and placed Greer on 

community supervision for ten years and assessed a fine of $500. The State later 

filed a motion to revoke Greer’s community supervision, alleging five violations of 

the conditions of his community supervision. Greer pleaded “true” to two

 1

Johnathan Livingston Greer is also known as Johnathon Levington Greer.
2

violations of his community supervision. After hearing evidence regarding the 

State’s allegation that Greer committed the offense of robbery while on community 

supervision, the trial court found that Greer had violated the conditions of his 

community supervision, adjudicated Greer’s guilt for burglary of a habitation,

revoked Greer’s community supervision, and sentenced Greer to twenty years in 

prison. 

Greer’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional 

evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1978). On May 20, 2016, we granted an extension of time for Greer to file a pro se 

brief. We received no response from Greer. We have determined that Greer’s 

appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the clerk’s record and 

the reporter’s record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable 

issues support Greer’s appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order 

appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 

S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.2

 2

Greer may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for 

discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 
3

AFFIRMED.

 

______________________________

 STEVE McKEITHEN

 Chief Justice

Submitted on August 24, 2016

Opinion Delivered August 31, 2016

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
[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.(Historical purposes)

**Title:** Study of LTPP distress data variability

V.1,V.2

 
SuDoc:TD 2.30:99-074 (v.1) ; TD 2.30:99-075 (v.2)
Item Number:0982-G-11 (online)
CGP system Number:001057973
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 20, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130415 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

KAREN A. LEONARD, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130415 

 COA: 264061 

WCAC: 01-000139 

BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF WAYNE 

STATE UNIVERSITY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 16, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of 

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration as on leave granted. 

KELLY, J., would deny leave to appeal. 

t0913 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 20, 2006 

 Clerk
### §2273. Local search and rescue operations

The Secretary of Agriculture may assist, through the use of Soil Conservation Service personnel, vehicles, communication equipment, and other equipment or materials available to the Secretary, in local search and rescue operations when requested by responsible local public authorities. Such assistance may be provided in emergencies caused by tornadoes, fires, floods, snowstorms, earthquakes, and similar disasters.

(Pub. L. 97–98, title XV, §1550, Dec. 22, 1981, 95 Stat. 1344.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Dec. 22, 1981, see section 1801 of Pub. L. 97–98, set out as a note under section 4301 of this title.
##### 



Exhibit 12.1
 
 Years ended December 31,2006
    
    
    2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002Fixed charges:Interest
    
    $
    166,608
    
    
    $
    146,062
    
    
    $
    88,901
    
    
    $
    113,385
    
    
    $
    151,878Eliminate BankAtlantic Bancorp and
and Levitt
    
    
    (166,578
    )
    
    
    (144,980
    )
    
    
    (87,730
    )
    
    
    (112,222
    )
    
    
    (150,725
    )Pre tax 5% Preferred stock dividends
    
    
    1,221
    
    
    
    1,221
    
    
    
    638
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    $
    1,251
    
    
    $
    2,303
    
    
    $
    1,809
    
    
    $
    1,163
    
    
    $
    1,153Earnings (loss):Income from continuing operations before income tax
    
    $
    12,179
    
    
    $
    146,553
    
    
    $
    173,326
    
    
    $
    84,724
    
    
    $
    54,956Eliminate BankAtlantic Bancorp and Levitt
    
    
    (19,043
    )
    
    
    (155,225
    )
    
    
    (174,890
    )
    
    
    (90,455
    )
    
    
    (59,311
    )Eliminate other partnerships
    
    
    67
    
    
    
    (14
    )
    
    
    (4,114
    )
    
    
    3,213
    
    
    
    1,427BankAtlantic
Bancorp/BankAtlantic and Levitt dividends
    
    
    2,350
    
    
    
    2,191
    
    
    
    1,925
    
    
    
    1,686
    
    
    
    1,581Fixed charges
    
    
    1,251
    
    
    
    2,303
    
    
    
    1,809
    
    
    
    1,163
    
    
    
    1,1535% Preferred stock dividends
    
    
    (750
    )
    
    
    (750
    )
    
    
    (392
    )
    
    
    
    
    
    
    $
    (3,946
    )
    
    $
    (4,942
    )
    
    $
    (2,336
    )
    
    $
    331
    
    
    $
    (194
    )Ratio
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    0.28
    
    
    
    Coverage deficiency
    
    $
    5,197
    
    
    $
    7,245
    
    
    $
    4,145
    
    
    $
    
    
    
    $
    1,347
### §2238. Use of field work funds for purchase of arms and ammunition

Funds available for field work in the Department of Agriculture may be used for the purchase of arms and ammunition whenever the individual purchase does not exceed $50, and for individual purchases exceeding $50, when such arms and ammunition cannot advantageously be supplied by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to section 7655 of title 10.

(June 4, 1936, ch. 489, 49 Stat. 1422; Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §809(d), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1841.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 542b of Title 5 prior to the general revision and enactment of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, by Pub. L. 89–554, §1, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 378.

The Department of War was designated the Department of the Army and the title of the Secretary of War was changed to Secretary of the Army by section 205(a) of act July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, 61 Stat. 501. Section 205(a) of act July 26, 1947, was repealed by section 53 of act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 641. Section 1 of act Aug. 10, 1956, enacted "Title 10, Armed Forces" which in sections 3010 to 3013 continued the military Department of the Army under the administrative supervision of a Secretary of the Army.

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 substituted "section 7655 of title 10" for "the Act of March 3, 1879 (20 Stat. 412)".

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

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of Title 10, Armed Forces.
No. 423.

#### Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company *v.*Herman Van de Zande.

Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin.

Motion to dismiss or affirm submitted March 29, 1920.

Decided April 19, 1920.

*Mr. R. N. Van Doren*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr¡. Robert A. Kaftan*for defendant in error.

*Per Curiam.*

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction upon the authority of § 237 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, § 2, 39 Stat. 726.
agenda

EPA SNAP Meeting

4/14/2014

10a.m.-11a.m.

Meeting called by: NAFEM

Attendees: Charlie Souhadra, NAFEM; Annie McCarthy, NAFEM; Mary Dane, Traulsen; Charlie Hon, True; NAFEM 

MEMBER TBD; COMPLIANCE? TBD; EPA Staffers: Cindy Newberg; Margaret Sheppard; Drusilla Hufford

Please read: Meeting Materials

Please bring: Be prepared to discuss the timeline and conditions w/ your company; NAFEM staff will bring leavebehinds

10 a.m. – 10:10 a.m. Introductions

Introduce NAFEM as an organization

Introduce Members

Introduce other Stakeholders in Attendance

Introduce Compliance if in attendance

Location TBD

Material/Supplier Discussion

Availability of Refrigerants

New Material/Components Needed

Finding a Supplier 

Diversity of components needed for each 

product

Price Adjustments

Timeline Discussion

Developing/Finding Components

Changes to Plants

Design Changes Due to Pressure Differences and 

Safety Needs

Compliance Timeline

Overlap with Other Regulations

DOE Energy Efficiency Regulations

Issues with Energy Efficiency Regulation Product 
agenda

Requirements and SNAP Regulation 

Requirements

[Wrap-up]

Go over leave behinds:

Specifically commercial kitchen layout and 

difficulty incorporating new refrigerants with 

temperature and space needs

Additional Information:

TBD w/ group discussions