alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §4202. Identifying effects of Federal programs on conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses

#### (a) Development of criteria to identify

The Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with other departments, agencies, independent commissions, and other units of the Federal Government, shall develop criteria for identifying the effects of Federal programs on the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses.

#### (b) Use of criteria to identify

Departments, agencies, independent commissions, and other units of the Federal Government shall use the criteria established under subsection (a) of this section, to identify the quantity of farmland actually converted by Federal programs, and to identify and take into account the adverse effects of Federal programs on the preservation of farmland; consider alternative actions, as appropriate, that could lessen such adverse effects; and assure that such Federal programs, to the extent practicable, are compatible with State, unit of local government, and private programs and policies to protect farmland.

#### (c) Availability of restorative, etc., information

The Department of Agriculture may make available to States, units of local government, individuals, organizations, and other units of the Federal Government information useful in restoring, maintaining, and improving the quantity and quality of farmland.

(Pub. L. 97–98, title XV, §1541, Dec. 22, 1981, 95 Stat. 1342; Pub. L. 101–624, title XIV, §1454, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3614.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1990—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 101–624 inserted "to identify the quantity of farmland actually converted by Federal programs, and" after "of this section,".

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective six months after Dec. 22, 1981, see section 1549 of Pub. L. 97–98, set out as a note under section 4201 of this title.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

TO: Deputy Inspector General

Assistant Inspectors General 

All OIG Regional Managers

Executive Officer, Office of Inspector General 

Budget Officer, Office of Inspector General

FROM: Inspector General

SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority to Certify Fund Availability

I. DELEGATION

Under the authority vested in me by a delegation to all Principal Officers from the 

Chief Financial Officer, EL/GEN/1, certified on December 3, 1998, I hereby 

delegate to you, and to anyone serving for you in an acting capacity, the authority 

to certify funds available for administering the functions and responsibilities of 

your office. This authority is issued pursuant to Title 31 of the U.S. Code, which 

governs the money and finances of the Department.

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

authority delegated herein are included in the scope of this delegation.

II. RESERVATIONS

None.

III. REDELEGATION 

This authority may not be redelegated. 

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

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

Delegation Control Officer and supersedes all previous delegations of this 

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

prior to the date of certification.

Page 2 – Delegation of Authority
V. I hereby ratify actions taken by addressees prior to certification of this delegation.

_________/s/___________ 

Lorraine Lewis

Certified Date: 1/3/01

Departmental Delegations Control Officer: /s/ Naty G. Beetle

Control Number: EF/Blanket/138
EXHIBIT 32.2
 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended
August 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition, and results of operations
of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the
Report.
 /s/ Richard L. Travis, Jr.Richard L. Travis, Jr.Chief Financial OfficerDate: September 25, 2009 The foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350; it is not
being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation languages in such filing.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1412

FRANCIS FORPA,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A95-264-590)

Submitted: December 13, 2004 Decided: January 7, 2005

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied; vacated in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David K. Wenger, WENGER & DADISMAN, P.C., Detroit, Michigan, for

Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Douglas

E. Ginsburg, Senior Litigation Counsel, John D. Williams, Office of

Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM

Francis Forpa, a native and citizen of Cameroon, seeks

review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming

without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his

application for asylum. 

We reject Forpa’s contention that he qualified for

asylum. Forpa does not qualify for relief because the IJ made a

negative credibility determination that is amply supported by the

record and is entitled to deference. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4) (2000);

see Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004); Rusu v.

INS, 296 F.3d 316, 323 (4th Cir. 2002). We conclude, however, that

the record does not support the conclusion that Forpa knowingly

filed a frivolous application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6) (2000);

8 C.F.R. § 208.20 (2004).

Accordingly, although we deny the petition for review, we

vacate the Board’s decision insofar as it finds Forpa’s application

frivolous. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED;

VACATED IN PART
### §5234. Cooperator organizations

#### (a) Sense of Congress

It is the sense of Congress that the foreign market development cooperator program of the Service, and the activities of individual foreign market cooperator organizations, have been among the most successful and cost-effective means to expand United States agricultural exports. Congress affirms its support for the program and the activities of the cooperator organizations. The Administrator and the private sector should work together to ensure that the program, and the activities of cooperator organizations, are expanded in the future.

#### (b) Commodities for cooperator organizations

The Secretary of Agriculture may make available to cooperator organizations agricultural commodities owned by the Commodity Credit Corporation, for use by such cooperators in projects designed to expand markets for United States agricultural commodities and products.

#### (c) Relation to funds

Commodities made available to cooperator organizations under this section shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, funds appropriated for market development activities of such cooperator organizations.

#### (d) Conflicts of interest

The Secretary shall take appropriate action to prevent conflicts of interest among cooperator organizations participating in the cooperator program.

#### (e) Evaluation

It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary should establish a consistent, objective means for the evaluation of cooperator programs.

(Pub. L. 100–418, title IV, §4214, Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1394.)
EXHIBIT 13.1





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 Annual Report of Avino Silver & Gold Mines Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”). I, David Wolfin, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





(1)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: May 14, 2013

/s/ David WolfinDavid Wolfin, Principal Executive Officer
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 1 0

- 3 0 8 5 0

H E N R Y H A Y N E S , P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l a n t

v
.
H I L L B R O T H E R S C O N S T R U C T I O N C O M P A N Y , I N C O R P O R A T E D ; C L Y D E S T A M E Y ; M I S S I S S I P P I F A R M B U R E A U C A S U A L T Y I N S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y ; X C A V A T O R , I N C O R P O R A T E D ,

D e f e n d a n t s - A p p e l l e e s

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e W e s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f L o u i s i a n a U S D C N o
. 3 : 1 0

- C V

- 1 4 5

B e f o r e J O N E S , C h i e f J u d g e , a n d K I N G a n d B A R K S D A L E , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M : * A F F I R M E D

. S e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 7

. 6

. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D May12 , 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Pursua nt to 5 T H C I R
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion s hould not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-30850 Document: 00511476011 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2011
### §499q. Separability

If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the chapter and of the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(June 10, 1930, ch. 436, §17, 46 Stat. 538.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 567 of this title.
#### 1252.216-72 Award Fee Plan.

As prescribed in 1216.406-70(b), insert the following clause:

# Award Fee Plan (NOV 2022)

(a) An Award Fee Plan shall be unilaterally established by the Government based on the criteria stated in the contract and used for the determination of award fee. This plan shall include the criteria used to evaluate each area and the percentage of award fee, if any, available for each area. A copy of the plan shall be provided to the Contractor___(*insert number*) calendar days prior to the start of the first evaluation period.

(b) The criteria contained within the Award Fee Plan may relate to: (1) Technical (including schedule) requirements, if appropriate; (2) Management; and (3) Cost.

(c) The Award Fee Plan may, consistent with the contract, be revised unilaterally by the Government at any time during the period of performance. Notification of such changes shall be provided to the Contractor___(*insert number*) calendar days prior to the start of the evaluation period to which the change will apply.

(End of clause)
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 13

- 0061 9

- CR
James Robert Montoya

v. The State of Texas
On Appeal from the 167th District Court of Travis County , Texas Trial Cause No. D

- 1

- DC

- 12

- 30074 6

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.

March 12, 2015
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.

SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Fred C. Schulte, Chief Executive Officer of Elgin National Industries,
Inc., certify that:



| | 1. | This quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Elgin National Industries, Inc. 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 this quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Elgin National Industries, Inc.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/S/    FRED C. SCHULTEFred C. SchulteChief Executive Officer




Date: May 13, 2004
### §503. Reports; necessity; by whom made; penalties

It shall be the duty of every dealer, manufacturer, quasi-manufacturer, growers' cooperative association, warehouseman, broker, holder, or owner, other than the original grower, except such persons as are excluded by the proviso to section 501 of this title, to furnish within fifteen days after January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1 of each year, completely and correctly, to the best of his knowledge, a report of the quantity of leaf tobacco on hand, segregated in accordance with the blanks furnished by the Secretary of Agriculture. Any person, firm, association, or corporation required by this chapter to furnish a report, and any officer, agent, or employee thereof who shall refuse or willfully neglect to furnish any of the information required by this chapter, or shall willfully give answers that are false or misleading, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not less than $300 or more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(Jan. 14, 1929, ch. 69, §3, 45 Stat. 1080; July 14, 1932, ch. 480, §2, 47 Stat. 663.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1932—Act July 14, 1932, made quasi-manufacturers subject to section.
Editorial Note on Part 842
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

§ 842.67 Statute of limitations. ( a ) A claim must be presented in writing within 2 years after it accrues. It accrues at the time the claimant discovers, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have discovered, the existence of the act causing property damage, personal injury or death for which the claim is filed.
( b ) In computing time to determine whether the period of limitation has expired, exclude the incident date and include the date the claim was filed.
[55 FR 2809, Jan. 29, 1990. Redesignated at 81 FR 83695, Nov. 22, 2016]
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 85651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28619]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID SBIR Phase II Clinical Trial 
Implementation Cooperative Agreement (U44); NIAID Clinical Trial 
Implementation Cooperative Agreement (U01); NIAID Clinical Trial 
Planning Grants (R34 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).
    Date: January 19-22, 2021.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E71A, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Patricia A. Gonzales Hurtado, Ph.D., Scientific 
Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3E71A, 
Rockville, MD 20852, 240-627-3556, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cf9faebbbda6aca6aee188a0a1b5aea3aabc8fa1a6a7e1a8a0b9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b7e7d6c3c5ded4ded699f0d8d9cdd6dbd2c4f7d9dedf99d0d8c1">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 21, 2020.
Tyeshia M. Roberson,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-28619 Filed 12-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
(April 4, 1962)

#### In the Matter of John Lawrence Phillips, Jr.

Application by an attorney from the State of Montana and the Virgin Islands for admission to practice as an attorney and counselor at law in this State. Application granted. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### BRIGGS v. RANKIN

No. 536PA97

Case below: 127 N.C.App. 477

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 allowed 5 February 1998.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, WESTERN DIVISION

PNC Bank, National Association, successor to National City
Bank as successor in interest to First of America Bank-
Tllinois,N.A.,
Plaintiff, No. 3:11 ev 50387
Vs Assigned Judge:
Frederick J. Kapala
Kamlu, Ltd.; Kimberly Selir; Family Wellness & Rehab, S.C., Designated Magistrate
Judge: P. Michael
Mahoney
Defendants.

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, PNC Bank, National Association, successor to National City
Bank, as successor in interest to First of America Bank-Illinois, N.A. by its attorneys Crowley &
Lamb, P.C., and moves the Court for the entry of a Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale in its favor
and against the Defendant(s):

Kamlu, Ltd.; Kimberly Selir; and Family Wellness & Rehab, S.C., and as grounds thereof
state:

As appears from the Affidavit of Plaintiff placed on file in support of this Motion, and
from the pleadings and admissions on file, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and
the Plaintiff is entitled to a Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale in this case as a matter of law.

PNC Bank, National Association, successor to

National City Bank as successor in interest to First
of America Bank-Illinois, N.A.

By: /s/ James M. Crowley
One of Its Attorneys

James M, Crowley (ARDC #6182597)
CROWLEY & LAMB, P.C.

221 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1550
Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 670-6900

jcrowley@crowleylamb.com
#### Ken Contractors Corp., Respondent, v. David Flitt et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

In an action by the vendor under a written contract for the sale of certain lands in Rockland County, to recover damages: (a) by reason of the failure of defendants Flitt and Shell, as vendees, to close title on March 1, 1963, pursuant to the contract; and (b) by reason of said defendants’ creation of a cloud on title by their recording of the contract, allegedly in altered form, in the office of the Clerk of Rockland County, in which said defendants interposed a counterclaim and cross claim for specific performance of the contract by plaintiff (and another corporation), the said defendants appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, dated October 7, 1963 and entered in Rockland County on or about October 8, 1963, which: (1) granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the counterclaim and cross claim; and (2) directed cancellation and discharge of said defendants’ *lis*pendens. A separate cause of action against the defendant Morris is not involved on this appeal. Order and judgment reversed, with $20 costs and disbursements, and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied. In our opinion, the papers on this motion raise mixed questions of fact and law with respect to the counterclaim and cross claim; such questions require a plenary trial for their proper resolution. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 2403** 

BONNIE SUZANNE MARTIN; SANDRA YINGLING; ASHLEY BARBER; DUANE DAVID MARTIN; DAVID DUANE MARTIN, Individually and as Personal Representative for the Estate of Debranne Martin , Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,

v.
UNITED FARM FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. J

. Mark Coulson , Magistrate Judge. ( 1:14

- cv - 01578

- JMC )

Submitted : June 24, 2015 Decided: August 4, 2015

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Andrew D

. Levy , Joseph B. Espo , Matthias L

. Niska , BROWN, GOLDSTEIN & LEVY, LLP , Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Margaret Fonshell Ward , WARD & HERZOG LLC , Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Bonnie Suzanne Martin , Sandra Yingling , Ashley Barber , Duane David Martin , and David Duane Martin appeal the magistrate judge’ s order granting summary judgment to United Farm Family

Insurance Co. in this diversity action arising out of a dispute over coverage under an insurance policy

. We have reviewed the

r ecord and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge

. See Martin v.
United Farm Family Ins. Co. , No. 1:14

- cv - 01578 (D. Md. Nov. 2 4,
2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal co ntentions are adequately presented in the materials
before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED