alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §2008a. Equitable relief

#### (a) In general

Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary may provide a form of relief described in subsection (c) to any farmer or rancher who—

(1) received a direct farm ownership, operating, or emergency loan under this chapter; and

(2) the Secretary determines is not in compliance with the requirements of this chapter with respect to the loan.

#### (b) Limitation

The Secretary may only provide relief to a farmer or rancher under subsection (a) if the Secretary determines that the farmer or rancher—

(1) acted in good faith; and

(2) relied on an action of, or the advice of, the Secretary (including any authorized representative of the Secretary) to the detriment of the farming or ranching operation of the farmer or rancher.

#### (c) Forms of relief

The Secretary may provide to a farmer or rancher under subsection (a) any of the following forms of relief:

(1) The farmer or rancher may retain loans or other benefits received in association with the loan with respect to which the farmer or rancher was determined to be noncompliant under subsection (a)(2).

(2) The farmer or rancher may receive such other equitable relief as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.

#### (d) Condition

As a condition of receiving relief under this section, the Secretary may require the farmer or rancher to take actions designed to remedy the noncompliance.

#### (e) Administrative appeal; judicial review

A determination or action of the Secretary under this section—

(1) shall be final; and

(2) shall not be subject to administrative appeal or judicial review under chapter 7 of title 5.

(Pub. L. 87–128, title III, §366, as added Pub. L. 115–334, title V, §5305, Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4672.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (a), was in the original "this title", meaning title III of Pub. L. 87–128, Aug. 8, 1961, 75 Stat. 307, known as the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of title III to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1921 of this title and Tables.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2008a, Pub. L. 87–128, title III, §366, as added Pub. L. 101–624, title XXIII, §2316(a), Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4004; amended Pub. L. 102–237, title VII, §701(f), Dec. 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 1879, related to State rural economic development review panel, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 104–127, title VII, §754, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1131.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Pauline S. Weston, Deceased. Daphne Sterling et al., Appellants; Sydney Weston, Respondent.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless the appellants procure the record on appeal and appellants’ points to be served and filed on or before December 22, 1960, with notice of argument for January 3, 1961, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Noonan, JJ.
§ 552.216 Violations. ( a ) A person is in violation of the terms of this subpart if: ( 1 ) That person enters or remains upon Aberdeen Proving Ground when that person is not licensed, invited, or otherwise authorized by the Commander, U.S. Army Garrison, Aberdeen Proving Ground pursuant to the terms of § 552.214; or
( 2 ) That person enters upon or remains upon Aberdeen Proving Ground for the purpose of engaging in any activity prohibited or limited by this subpart.
( b ) All persons (military personnel, Department of the Army civilian employees, civilians, and others) may be prosecuted for violating the provisions of this subpart. Military personnel may be prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Department of the Army civilian employees may be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. 1382, and/or disciplined under appropriate regulations. Civilians and others may be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. 1382.
( c ) Administrative sanctions may include, but are not limited to, bar actions including suspension of access privileges, or permanent exclusion from Aberdeen Proving Ground.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 6619

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. LEONEL ROMEO CAZACO, a/k/a Phil, a/k/a Jimmy Fingers, a/k/a Frank Nisbett, a/k/a James Romeo Nelson, a/k/a Scott , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Robert E. Payne , Senior District Judge. ( 3:96

- cr - 00066

- REP

- EWH

- 6 )

Submitted : September 22, 2022 Decided: September 27, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Andrew Michael Stewart, LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW M. STEWART , Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not bindi ng precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6619 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/27/2022 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:
Leonel Romeo Cazaco appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. Upon review, we discern no
abuse of discretion in the district court’s d etermination that, under the pertinent 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, compassionate release was not warranted. See United States
v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329

- 31 (4th Cir.) (providing standard of review and outlining steps for evaluating compassionate release motions) , cert. denied , 142 S. Ct. 383 (2021)

. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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 the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6619 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/27/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
11.403 Supplies or services. ( a ) The contracting officer may express contract delivery or performance schedules in terms of— ( 1 ) Specific calendar dates;
( 2 ) Specific periods from the date of the contract; i.e., from the date of award or acceptance by the Government, or from the date shown as the effective date of the contract;
( 3 ) Specific periods from the date of receipt by the contractor of the notice of award or acceptance by the Government (including notice by receipt of contract document executed by the Government); or
( 4 ) Specific time for delivery after receipt by the contractor of each individual order issued under the contract, as in indefinite delivery type contracts and GSA schedules.
( b ) The time specified for contract performance should not be curtailed to the prejudice of the contractor because of delay by the Government in giving notice of award.
( c ) If the delivery schedule is based on the date of the contract, the contracting officer shall mail or otherwise furnish to the contractor the contract, notice of award, acceptance of proposal, or other contract document not later than the date of the contract.
( d ) If the delivery schedule is based on the date the contractor receives the notice of award, or if the delivery schedule is expressed in terms of specific calendar dates on the assumption that the notice of award will be received by a specified date, the contracting officer shall send the contract, notice of award, acceptance of proposal, or other contract document by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by any other method that will provide evidence of the date of receipt.
( e ) In invitations for bids, if the delivery schedule is based on the date of the contract, and a bid offers delivery based on the date the contractor receives the contract or notice of award, the contracting officer shall evaluate the bid by adding 5 calendar days (as representing the normal time for arrival through ordinary mail). If the contract or notice of award will be transmitted electronically, ( 1 ) the solicitation shall so state; and
( 2 ) the contracting officer shall evaluate delivery schedule based on the date of contract receipt or notice of award, by adding one working day. (The term “working day” excludes weekends and U.S. Federal holidays.) If the offered delivery date computed with mailing or transmittal time is later than the delivery date required by the invitation for bids, the bid shall be considered nonresponsive and rejected. If award is made, the delivery date will be the number of days offered in the bid after the contractor actually receives the notice of award.
§ 935.12 Functions, powers, and duties. The Commander may— ( a ) Appoint Peace Officers;
( b ) Direct the abatement of any public nuisance upon failure of any person to comply with a notice of removal;
( c ) Direct sanitation and fire prevention inspections;
( d ) Establish records of vital statistics;
( e ) Direct the registration and inspections of motor vehicles, boats, and aircraft;
( f ) Impose quarantines;
( g ) Direct the impoundment and destruction of unsanitary food, fish, or beverages;
( h ) Direct the evacuation of any person from a hazardous area;
( i ) Commission notaries public;
( j ) Establish and maintain a facility for the restraint or confinement of persons and provide for their care;
( k ) Direct the removal of any person from Wake Island and prohibit his future presence on the island;
( l ) Issue traffic regulations that are not inconsistent with this part, and post traffic signs;
( m ) Prohibit the posting, distribution, or public display of advertisements, signs, circulars, petitions, or similar materials, soliciting, picketing, or parading in any public place or area if he determines it would interfere with public business or endanger the health and safety of persons and property on Wake Island;
( n ) Perform or direct any other acts, not inconsistent with this part or applicable laws and regulations, if he considers it necessary for protection of the health or safety of persons and property on Wake Island; and
( o ) Issue any order or notice necessary to implement this section. Any order or notice issued pursuant to Air Force directives and instructions as applicable to Wake Island shall constitute an order or notice issued pursuant to this section.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

BREANA CASTLE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 451 MAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 9th day of September, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is DENIED. Further, the Application for Leave to file Amicus Brief is DENIED as moot.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

TEELA NORRIS,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,

Respondent

______________________ 

2021-2142

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-0752-19-0724-I-3.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

EJIKE OBINECHE, Obineche Law Firm, LLC, Greenbelt, 

MD, argued for petitioner. 

 KARA WESTERCAMP, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent. Also represented by 

BRIAN M. BOYNTON, TARA K. HOGAN, PATRICIA M.

MCCARTHY. 

 ______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

Case: 21-2142 Document: 36 Page: 1 Filed: 11/07/2022
ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (DYK, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 

November 7, 2022 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 21-2142 Document: 36 Page: 2 Filed: 11/07/2022
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II

In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of DOMINIQUE JAMAAL STE WART ,

Petitioner. No s
. 51380

- 3

- II and 56 260

- 0

- II (consolidated)
UNPUBLISHED OPINION

C RUSER , J.

— Dominque Jamaal Stewart seeks relief from perso nal restraint imposed
fol lowing his 2011 pleas of guilty to two counts of first degree robbery and one count of second degree manslaughter, crimes he committed when he was 17 years old

. He argues
that he is entitled to be resentenced under State v. Houston

- Sconiers , 188 Wn.2d 1, 391 P.3d
409 (2017), In re Pers. R estraint of Ali , 196 Wn.2d 220, 474 P.3d 507 (2020), cert. denied , 141 S. Ct. 1754 (2021), and In re Pers. Restraint of Domingo

- Cornelio , 196 Wn.2d 255, 474 P.3d 524 (2020) , cert. denied , 141 S. Ct. 1754 (2021), so that the trial court can take into

accoun t his youthfulness at the time of his crimes. The State concedes that Stewart is entitled to resentencing. Accordingly , we grant Stewart’s petition and remand his 2011 judgment
and sent ence to the trial court for resentencing. We deny Stewart’s motion f or release pending resentencing. Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two February 23, 2022Nos. 51380

- 3

- II and 56260

- 0

- II

2 A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.

Cruser, J. We concur:

Maxa, P. J.

Veljacic , J.
#### VIRMANI v. PRESBYTERIAN HEALTH SERVICES CORP.

No. 62P97-2

Case below: 127 N.C.App. 629

Motion by defendant for temporary stay allowed 7 December 1997.
### §1623. Authorization of appropriations; allotments to States

(a) In order to conduct research and service work in connection with the preparation for market, processing, packaging, handling, storing, transporting, distributing, and marketing of agricultural products as authorized by this chapter, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated the following sums:

(1) $2,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1947, and each subsequent fiscal year.

(2) An additional $2,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1948, and each subsequent fiscal year.

(3) An additional $5,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1949, and each subsequent fiscal year.

(4) An additional $5,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1950, and each subsequent fiscal year.

(5) An additional $5,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1951, and each subsequent fiscal year.

(6) In addition to the foregoing, such additional funds beginning with the fiscal year ending June 30, 1952, and thereafter, as the Congress may deem necessary.

Such sums appropriated in pursuance of this chapter shall be in addition to, and not in substitution for, sums appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Agriculture.

(b) The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to make available from such funds such sums as he may deem appropriate for allotment to State departments of agriculture, State bureaus and departments of markets, State agricultural experiment stations, and other appropriate State agencies for cooperative projects in marketing service and in marketing research to effectuate the purposes of this chapter: Provided, That no such allotment and no payment under any such allotment shall be made for any fiscal year to any State agency in excess of the amount which such State agency makes available out of its own funds for such research. The funds which State agencies are required to make available in order to qualify for such an allotment shall be in addition to any funds now available to such agencies for marketing services and for marketing research. The allotments authorized under this section shall be made to the agency or agencies best equipped and qualified to conduct the specific project to be undertaken. Such allotments shall be covered by cooperative agreements between the Secretary of Agriculture and the cooperating agency and shall include appropriate provisions for preventing duplication or overlapping of work within the State or States cooperating. Should duplication or overlapping occur subsequent to approval of a cooperative project or allotment of funds, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized and directed to withhold unexpended balances on such projects notwithstanding the prior approval thereof.

(Aug. 14, 1946, ch. 966, title II, §204, 60 Stat. 1089.)
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 October 7, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel
A. Messmer, Chief Executive 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/ DANIEL A. MESSMER
-------------------------------------
Daniel A. Messmer
President and Chief Executive Officer
October 26, 2006


                                       19
#### POWDERLY v. SOOYSMITH et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

January 23, 1903.)

Action by James Powderly against Sooysmith & Co.

No opinion. Motion denied, without costs.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS EASTLAND , TEXAS JUDGMENT

In re Lone Star NGL Pipeline LP * Original Mandamus Proceeding and ETP Crude LLC,

No. 11

- 20

- 000 10

- CV * February 3 , 20 20

* Opinion by Bailey
, C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.
, Stretcher , J., and Wright, S.C.J., sitting by assignment) (Willson, J., not participating)
This court has inspected the reco rd in this cause and c oncludes that
Relator ’s petition for writ of mandamus should be denied in part and conditionally granted in part

. We deny Relator s ’ petition for writ of mandamus to the extent that they request that we order the Honorable Judge John Smith

“ to refuse to issue any injunction to cease use of the pipeline in place and subject to the condemnation proceeding initiated by cross

- claim in this matter. ” We conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus as to the portion of
the December 18, 2019 order in which Judge Smith denied Relators’ motion to set security. A writ of mandamus will issue only if Judge Smith does not vacate that portion of the order and set adequate security by February 13 , 2020.
#### In the Matter of Albert Martin Cohen, Petitioner. Brooklyn Bar Association, Respondent.

Application by petitioner for reinstatement as an attorney and counselor at law, denied. [For prior decision, see *Matter of Cohen,*18 A D 2d 927.] Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### Mattie Lockhart, administratrix of the estate of J. W. Lockhart, deceased, appellee, v. A. Silver, appellant.

Gen. No. 29,845.

Suit by administratrix for balance due for merchandise sold to defendant by plaintiff’s intestate. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. George A. Curran, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1924.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 13, 1925.

Lewis, Adler, Lederer & Kahn, for appellant.

Julian J. Luster, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Union Agreements in the Petroleum-Refining Industry in Effect in 1944

              																	Marquardt, Philomena					 and 	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Union Agreements in the Petroleum-Refining Industry in Effect in 1944 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 823*,												Washington, D.C: 								U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 										1945,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4296,			accessed on September 14, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
American Country Holdings, Inc. on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-39657 and 333-94737)
of our reports dated March 29, 2000, on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedules of American Country Holdings, Inc.
as of December 31, 1999 and 1998, and for the years then ended, which reports
are included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

March 30, 2000
### §2239. Funds for printing, binding, and scientific and technical article reprint purchases

Funds available to the Department of Agriculture may be used for printing and binding, including the purchase of reprints of scientific and technical articles.

(Sept. 6, 1950, ch. 896, Ch. VI, title IV, §406, 64 Stat. 679.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 542c 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.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 24, 2011 

t0516 

Order 

 

May 24, 2011 

142699 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142699 

 COA: 295361 

Oakland CC: 2009-225325-FH 

RICHARD WALTER LAJDZIAK, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 27, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

 ZAHRA, J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.