alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §5672. Development of plans to alleviate adverse impact of embargoes

To alleviate, to the maximum extent possible, the adverse impact on farmers, elevator operators, common carriers, and exporters of agricultural commodities of the President or other member of the executive branch of the Federal Government causing the export of any agricultural commodity to any country or area of the world to be suspended or restricted, the Secretary of Agriculture shall—

(1) develop a comprehensive contingency plan that shall include—

(A) an assessment of existing farm programs with a view to determining whether such programs are sufficiently flexible to enable the Secretary to efficiently and effectively offset the adverse impact of such a suspension or restriction on farmers, elevator operators, common carriers, and exporters of commodities provided for under such programs;

(B) an evaluation of the kinds and availability of information needed to determine, on an emergency basis, the extent and severity of the impact of such a suspension or restriction on producers, elevator operators, common carriers, and exporters; and

(C) the development of criteria for determining the extent, if any, to which the impact of such a suspension or restriction should be offset in the case of each of the sectors referred to in paragraph (1)(B);

(2) for any suspension or restriction for which compensation is not provided under section 5671 of this title, prepare and submit to the appropriate Committees of Congress such recommendations for changes in existing agricultural programs, or for new programs, as the Secretary considers necessary to handle effectively, efficiently, economically, and fairly the impact of any such suspension or restriction;

(3) for any suspension or restriction for which compensation is provided under section 5671 of this title, prepare and submit to the appropriate Committees of Congress a plan for implementing and administering section 5671 of this title; and

(4) require the Commodity Credit Corporation, prior to such Corporation purchasing any contracts for the purpose of offsetting the impact of a commodity suspension or restriction, to—

(A) prepare an economic justification for each commodity involved in the suspension or restriction to determine if such a purchase is necessary;

(B) estimate any suspension- or restriction-related benefits and detrimental effects to the exporters, and use both estimates in determining the extent, if any, Federal assistance is needed; and

(C) limit its purchases to only those types and grades of commodities suspended or restricted from shipment and make such purchases at prices at or near the current market prices.

(Pub. L. 95–501, title IV, §412, as added Pub. L. 101–624, title XV, §1531, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3684.)
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES,

Appellant,

v.

B.G., a child,

Appellee.

No. 4D15-4793

[June 8, 2016]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Susan Lebow, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2015-2908 CJ-DP.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carolyn Schwarz, 

Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, and Melanie L. Casper, Assistant

Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, 

Fourth District, West Palm Beach, for D.K., the mother.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the dismissal of the dependency petition. Appellant’s 

dependency petition stated a prima facie case of dependency by alleging 

that the child tested positive for a controlled substance at birth. See §

39.01(2), (30)(g), Fla. Stat. (2015). Count II of the petition alleged, among 

other things, an imminent threat of abuse. A “substantial risk of imminent 

abuse” is grounds for dependency. § 39.01(15)(f). Abuse can result from 

a willful act resulting in “harm,” and “harm” can now be established by a 

positive drug test at birth. § 39.01(30)(g)(1).

Reversed and remanded.

GROSS, FORST and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 709 

To prohibit the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

from taking administrative action to recover certain payments for disaster 

or emergency assistance, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 23, 2017 

Mr. NELSON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Administrator of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency from taking administrative action 

to recover certain payments for disaster or emergency 

assistance, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Disaster Assistance 

5 Improvement Act of 2017’’. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 709 IS

1 SEC. 2. ACTIONS TO RECOVER PAYMENT FOR DISASTER OR 

2 EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 705 of the Robert T. 

4 Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 

5 (42 U.S.C. 5205) is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (a)(1)— 

7 (A) by striking ‘‘Except’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘Notwithstanding section 3716(e) of title 31, 

9 United States Code, and except’’; and 

10 (B) by striking ‘‘report for the disaster or 

11 emergency’’ and inserting ‘‘report for project 

12 completion as certified by the grantee’’; and 

13 (2) in subsection (b)— 

14 (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘report 

15 for the disaster or emergency’’ and inserting 

16 ‘‘report for project completion as certified by 

17 the grantee’’; and 

18 (B) in paragraph (3), by inserting ‘‘for 

19 project completion as certified by the grantee’’ 

20 after ‘‘final expenditure report’’. 

21 (b) APPLICABILITY.—With respect to a payment for 

22 disaster or emergency assistance provided to a State or 

23 local government on or after January 1, 2004, the Admin24 istrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

25 may not take administrative action to recover such pay26 ment for assistance after the date of enactment of this 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 709 IS

1 Act if the action is prohibited under section 705(a)(1) of 

2 the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency As3 sistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5205(a)(1)), as amended by sub4 section (a). 

5 (c) LIMITATION.—Nothing in this section, including 

6 the amendments made by this section, shall be construed 

7 to invalidate or otherwise affect any administrative action 

8 completed before the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 16, 2015

No. 04-15-00661-CR

Roland HERNANDEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR7447W

Honorable Ray Olivarri, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion issued this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR 

WANT OF JURISDICTION.

It is so ORDERED on December 16, 2015.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 16th day of December, 2015.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
#### § 720.32 Certificates of full faith and credit.

The Judge Advocate General, the Deputy Judge Advocate General, or any Assistant Judge Advocate General is authorized to execute certificates of full faith and credit certifying the signatures and authority of officers of the Department of the Navy.

[38 FR 6021, Mar. 6, 1973]
#### EMBERSON, Respondent, v. WILSON, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 9, 1903.)

Action by Samuel Emberson against Edward C. Wilson.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
#### Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York, Respondent, v. Justin M. Golenbock et al., as Temporary Administrators of the Estate of Errol Flynn, Deceased, Defendants-Appellants and Third-Party Plaintiffs. Huntington Hartford, Individually, and Doing Business as Huntington Hartford Enterprises, Third-Party Defendant.

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs to the respondent. No opinion. Concur—■ Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
### §361d. Use of funds

Moneys appropriated pursuant to sections 361a to 361i of this title shall also be available, in addition to meeting expenses for research and investigations conducted under authority of section 361b of this title, for printing and disseminating the results of such research, retirement of employees subject to the provisions of section 331 of this title, administrative planning and direction, and for the purchase and rental of land and the construction, acquisition, alteration, or repair of buildings necessary for conducting research. The State agricultural experiment stations are authorized to plan and conduct any research authorized under section 361b of this title in cooperation with each other and such other agencies and individuals as may contribute to the solution of the agricultural problems involved, and moneys appropriated pursuant to sections 361a to 361i of this title shall be available for paying the necessary expenses of planning, coordinating, and conducting such cooperative research.

(Mar. 2, 1887, ch. 314, §4, 24 Stat. 441; Aug. 11, 1955, ch. 790, §1, 69 Stat. 672.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 365 of this title.

#### Amendments

1955—Act Aug. 11, 1955, amended section generally to provide for printing and disseminating the results of research, retirement of employees, administrative planning and direction, purchase and rental of land, and the construction, acquisition, alteration, or repair of buildings necessary for conducting research. Former provisions which related to issuance and free mailing of publications are now contained in section 361f of this title.
### §3172. Duties of Secretary of Agriculture

In order to carry out the policy of this subchapter, the Secretary shall develop and implement a national food and human nutrition research and extension program that shall include, but not be limited to—

(1) research on human nutritional requirements;

(2) research on the nutrient composition of foods and the effects of agricultural practices, handling, food processing, and cooking on the nutrients they contain;

(3) surveillance of the nutritional benefits provided to participants in the food programs administered by the Department of Agriculture;

(4) research on the factors affecting food preference and habits; and

(5) the development of techniques and equipment to assist consumers in the home or in institutions in selecting food that supplies a nutritionally adequate diet.

(Pub. L. 95–113, title XIV, §1422, Sept. 29, 1977, 91 Stat. 999.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1977, see section 1901 of Pub. L. 95–113, set out as an Effective Date of 1977 Amendment note under section 1307 of this title.
EXHIBIT 32.2

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Esterline Technologies Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
July 29, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I,
Robert D. George, Chief Financial 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 Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
          78o(d)); and

(2)       
          The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                          |  |     |                                                                                            
|------------------------- |  | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated:  September 2, 2005 |  | By: | /s/  Robert D. George                                                                      
|                          |  |     | Robert D. GeorgeVice President, Chief Financial Officer,
           Secretary and Treasurer
|                          |  |     |
#### GRUBER v. JANNS et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 18, 1903.)

1. Replevin—Possession under Execution—Regularity—Prima Facie Case.

A prima facie case of regularity of possession of goods by a marshal is made by admission that he holds them pursuant to an execution issued on a judgment rendered.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Fifth District.

Action of replevin by Bernard Gruber against Joseph J. Janns and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

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

A. B. Schleimer, for appellant.

Abraham Brekstone, for respondents.

BISCHOFF, J.

The defendant Janns, a city marshal, obtained possession of the goods by levy under a warrant of attachment, and now holds them, according to a stipulation or admission of record upon the trial below, “pursuant to an execution issued out of the Eleventh District Municipal Court on the 4th day of August, 1902, upon judgment rendered” in the action in which the attachment issued. This admission suffices prima facie for the regularity of the defendant’s claim to possession, and, while it would appear that there was some contention as to the proper form of a paper purporting to be the judgment, the record before us does not present the contents of the paper; and we have no ground for holding, with the appellant, that the defendant’s possession is founded upon proceedings which might be. assailed as irregular or void. Not only is it admitted that the execution was issued upon a “judgment rendered,”- but the plaintiff’s attorney seems to have admitted the fact of the “entry” of-this judgment in. the course of his offer of the execution in evidence, and *883there is nothing before us to show any invalidity in the judgment. See Risk v. Uffelman, 7 Misc. Rep. 138, 27 N. Y. Supp. 392.

The defendant’s possession being justified by the only proof submitted, so far as we may hold, the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
Form of Common Stock certificate



 Exhibit 4.4 
  



 
 STEAKHOUSE PARTNERS, INC. 
 INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 AUTHORIZED: 25,000,000 COMMON SHARES, $.01 PAR VALUE 
 This Certifies That
SEE REVERSE FOR 
 CERTAIN DEFINITIONS CUSIP 857875207 Is The Owner Of 
  
 FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE COMMON SHARES, $.01 PAR VALUE
OF Steakhouse Partners, Inc. 
 transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly
authorized attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid until countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar. 
 In Witness Whereof, the Corporation has caused this Certificate to be signed by the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers
and to be sealed with the facsimile seal of the Corporation. 
 Dated: 

	 PRESIDENT
	  
	 SECRETARY 


 COUNTERSIGNED: CORPORATE STOCK TRANSFER, INC. 
  
 3200 Cherry Creek Drive South, Suite 430, Denver, CO 80209 
  
 By: 
 Transfer
Agent and Registrar Authorized Officer 







 

 
 Steakhouse Partners, Inc. 
 Corporate Stock Transfer, Inc. 
 Transfer Fee: As Required 
 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of
this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations: 
 TEN COM -- as tenants in common 
 TEN ENT -- as tenants by the entireties 
 JT TEN -- as joint tenants with right of 
 survivorship and not as tenants 
 in common 
 UNIF GIFT MIN ACT - Custodian for 
 (Cust.) (Minor) 
 under Uniform Gifts to Minors 
 Act of 
 (State) 
 Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. 
  
 For value received hereby sell, assign and transfer unto

  
 PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER

  
 IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE 
  
 Please print or type name and address of assignee

  
 Shares of the Common Stock
represented by the within Certificate and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint 
 Attorney to transfer the said stock
on the books of the within-named Corporation, with full power of substitution in the premises. 
 Dated 20 
 SIGNATURE GUARANTEED: 
 X 
 X 
 THE SIGNATURE TO THIS ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THIS CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR, WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT OR ANY CHANGE WHATSOEVER. THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED
BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (Banks, Stockbrokers, Savings and Loan Associations and Credit Unions) WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM.
UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THEDI STRI CT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________) ) UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA ) ) v. ) Criminal No. 81-0306 (PL F) ) J OHN W. HI

NCKL EY, JR
. ) ) ____________________________________)
ORDER Upon consider ation of the g overnme nt’s motion for extension of tim e to submit supplemental expert re port, and Mr. H inckley ’s memora ndum in response, it is here by ORDERED that the g overnme nt’s motion is GRANTED in pa rt and DEN I ED in part; and it is FURTHE R ORDERED that the supplemental expert re port of Dr . Ray mond Patterson must be submitted on or befor e F ebrua ry 19, 2013; the date f

or submission of Dr. Rober t Phil lips’ expert report re mains Fe bruar y 21, 2013. No extensions of these dates w ill be grante d. SO ORDERED. /s/______________________________ PAULL . FRIEDMAN DATE: January

31, 2013 United States District J udg e
#### In the Matter of the Second Additional Grand Jury for the September 1961 Term of the County Court, Kings County, Respondent, v. Aurelius Cirillo, Appellant.

Motion by appellant for stay of two orders of the Comity Court, Kings County, pending appeal therefrom, denied. On the court’s own motion, the appeals are ordered on the calendar for Monday, June 4, 1962; they will be heard on the original papers and on the typewritten briefs of both parties. The briefs should contain the opinion, if any, rendered by the County Court. The parties are directed to file six copies of their respective typewritten briefs and to serve one copy upon each other, before 10 o’clock on the morning of June 4. Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
§ 775.3 Policy. ( a ) It is the DON policy regarding NEPA, consistent with its mission and regulations and the environmental laws and regulations of the United States, to: ( 1 ) Initiate the NEPA processes at the earliest possible time to be an effective decision making tool in the course of identifying a proposed action.
( 2 ) Develop and carefully consider a reasonable range of alternatives for achieving the purpose(s) of proposed actions.
( 3 ) Assign responsibility for preparation of action specific environmental analysis under NEPA to the action proponent. The action proponent should understand the plans, analyses, and environmental documents related to that action.
( b ) NEPA is intended to ensure that environmental issues are fully considered and incorporated into the Federal decision making process. Consequently, actions for which the DON has no decision-making authority and no discretion in implementing the action, such as those carried out under a non discretionary mandate from Congress (e.g., congressional direction to transfer Federal property to a particular entity for a particular purpose that leaves DON no discretion in how the transfer will be implemented) or as an operation of law (e.g., reversionary interests in land recorded at the time the property was obtained and that provide no discretion in whether to trigger the reversion or how the reversion will be implemented), require no analysis or documentation under NEPA or its implementing regulations.
[69 FR 8109, Feb. 23, 2004]
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Philip A. Garcia, Chief Financial Officer of Erie Family Life Insurance
Company, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Erie Family
Life Insurance Company;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:  a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report
is being prepared;b.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report
our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; andc.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of registrants board of directors:  a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses
in the design or operation of internal control over financial
reporting, which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in
the registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date: October 27, 2004/s/ Philip A. GarciaPhilip A. Garcia, Executive Vice President & CFO
 31
#### CUDLIP, Respondent, v. NEW YORK EVENING JOURNAL PUB. CO., Appellant

(Supreme Court, Appellate. Division, First De partment.

November 20, 1903.)

Action b; Ellen B. Cudlip against the. New York Evening Journal Publishing Company.

E. M. Shepard for appellant. T. P. Wickes, for respondent

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, wit." costs.