alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §930. Congressional declaration of policy

It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress that adequate funds should be made available to rural electric and telephone systems through direct, insured and guaranteed loans at interest rates which will allow them to achieve the objectives of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended [7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.], and that such rural electric and telephone systems should be encouraged and assisted to develop their resources and ability to achieve the financial strength needed to enable them to satisfy their credit needs from their own financial organizations and other sources at reasonable rates and terms consistent with the loan applicant's ability to pay and achievement of the Act's objectives.

(Pub. L. 93–32, §1, May 11, 1973, 87 Stat. 65.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 and the Act, referred to in text, are act May 20, 1936, ch. 432, 49 Stat. 1363, which is classified generally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 901 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section is comprised of the first sentence of section 1 of Pub. L. 93–32. The last sentence of section 1 of Pub. L. 93–32 provided that: "The Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 901–950(b)), is therefore further amended as hereinafter provided."

Section was not enacted as part of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 which comprises this chapter.

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 93–32, §12, May 14, 1973, 87 Stat. 71, provided that: "This Act [enacting sections 906a, 930, and 933 to 940 of this title, amending sections 903, 931, 932, 945, 946, 947, and 948 of this title, and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section] shall take effect upon enactment [May 11, 1973]."

#### Reservation of Right To Repeal, Alter, or Amend Pub. L. 93–32

Pub. L. 93–32, §11, May 14, 1973, 87 Stat. 71, provided that: "The right to repeal, alter, or amend, this Act [enacting sections 906a, 930, and 933 to 940 of this title, amending sections 903, 931, 932, 945, 946, 947, and 948 of this title, and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section] is expressly reserved."
#### § 516.7 Mailing addresses.

Mailing addresses for organizations referenced in this regulation are in appendix B to this part.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

THE SECRETARY

MEMORANDUM

TO: The Assistant Secretary

 Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development

FROM: The Secretary 

SUBJECT: Delegation of Authority

I. DELEGATION

Under the authority vested in me by Section 412 of the Department of Education 

Organization Act, 20 U.S.C. 3472, I hereby delegate to you, to your successor in 

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

perform Department-level program and administrative budget, and program 

planning and evaluation functions. The authority also includes, but is not limited 

to, the authority to establish Department-wide standards, policies, and procedures 

and to approve issuance of departmental manuals, guidelines and instructions in 

the areas of budget, planning, and evaluation.

In addition, I delegate to you the following authorities that you will share jointly 

with the Chief Financial Officer:

A. Authority to establish and maintain the Department’s system of funds 

control; and

B. Authority to establish all appropriation and fund accounts for the 

Department, including management fund accounts.

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

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

II. RESERVATIONS

Unless otherwise noted in existing or future delegations of authority, the 

following are not delegated:

A. The authority to sign certain documents for publication in the Federal 

Register;
Page 2 – Delegation of Authority

B. The authority to appoint, and fix compensation of, members of advisory 

councils; and

C. Unless otherwise provided by law, the authority to submit reports to the 

Congress or the President.

III. REDELEGATION

Subject to any requirements of law, you may redelegate the authority delegated to 

you. All redelegations must be prepared in accordance with the Administrative 

Communications System Directive, OM:1-102, Delegations of Authority, dated 

July 26, 2005.

IV. CERTIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

This delegation is effective upon certification of the Department’s Principal 

Delegations Control Officer and supersedes all previous delegations of this 

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

by you prior to certification of this delegation.

__________/s/___________

 Margaret Spellings

OGC Concurrence and Date: David Berthiaume, 8/4/2005

Certified Date: 8/17/2005

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

Control Number: EA/ED/1
Memorandum

us. Department of

Transportotion

Office of the Secretary

of Transportation

Subject: Notice of Communication in Docket:

DOT-OST-OST-2010-0124

2010 SCASDP Proceeding

{

ro." e

t•.•.,J

a ~~~; (;~-" ~""7

j"f"i.:D;:.;:

.:.--;.~,-..,....,

,;?~~~

I".) c/')

a

In accordance with Department rules (14 CFR Part 300), I am reporting the following

communication.

Robert Letteney,~LDeputy Assistant Secretary for

Aviation and International Affairs (and former Deputy

Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs)

Chief, Dockets

From:

To:

On October 4,2010, Congressman Jason Chaffetz placed a telephone call to Secretary

LaHood, during which Congressman Chaffetz expressed his support for the City of Provo,

Utah's application for funds administered under the Small Community Air Service

Development Program (SCASDP). Secretary LaHood listened, and explained that while he

appreciated the Congressman's interest in the Department's SCASDP proceeding, he could

not comment on the merits because the matter was under active consideration by the

Department. The Secretary also explained that the Department would likely announce its

grant selections by the end of October.

Please place this memorandum in the appropriate Docket.

cc: Congressman Jason Chaffetz
### §4817. Preemption

#### (a) Promotion and consumer education; funds from pork producers

This chapter is intended to occupy the field of—

(1) promotion and consumer education involving pork and pork products; and

(2) obtaining funds therefor from pork producers.

#### (b) Additional or different State regulation prohibited

The regulation of such activity (other than a regulation or requirement relating to a matter of public health or the provision of State or local funds for such activity) that is in addition to or different from this chapter may not be imposed by a State.

#### (c) Application of section

This section shall apply only during a period beginning on the date of the commencement of the collection of assessments under section 4809 of this title and ending on the date of the termination of the collection of assessments under section 4811(a)(3) or 4811(b)(1)(B) 1 of this title.

(Pub. L. 99–198, title XVI, §1628, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1621.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1986, see section 1631 of Pub. L. 99–198, set out as a note under section 4801 of this title.

1 So in original. Probably should be "section 4811(b)(2)(A) or 4812(b)(1)(B)".
#### Kasel Hut et al., Respondents, v. Mabel Fraser, an Incompetent Person, by the Committee of her Person and Property, William D. Fraser, Appellant, and Mikarl Realty Co., Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Mabel Fraser, an incompetent person, by her committee, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 8, 1960, which denies her motion for an order vacating the summons and complaint, vacating the default judgment entered in the action, and nullifying subsequent conveyances and liens on the premises. The defendant was adjudicated an incompetent and a committee for her person and property was appointed after the entry of judgment in the foreclosure action and after the sale of the property to a bona fide purchaser for a valuable and fair consideration. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements (see, e.g., *Goldberg*v. *McCord,*251 N. Y. 28). Nolan, P. J,, Beldock, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
Certification
 Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Emerson Radio Corp.;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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for the registrant and have:
     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 (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: August 19, 2009
    /s/ Greenfield PittsGreenfield PittsChief Financial Officer
M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 224TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on October 7, 2015, the cause upon appeal to

revise or reverse your judgment between

Caroline Buswell, Appellant

V.

The GWSPI Company LLC as Successor in Interest to Wilmington Trust, NA, Trustee of the Jeffrey P.

Blanchard 2013 Family Trust, Appellee

No. 04-15-00398-CV and Tr. Ct. No. 2015-CI-06197

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the order of the trial

court is REVERSED, and all claims in the underlying cause against the

appellant, Caroline Buswell, are DISMISSED. It is ORDERED that appellant,

Caroline Buswell, recover her costs of this appeal from appellee, The GWSPI

Company LLC as Successor in Interest to Wilmington Trust, NA, Trustee of

the Jeffrey P. Blanchard 2013 Family Trust.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on December 16, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04-15-00398-CV

Caroline Buswell

v.

The GWSPI Company LLC as Successor in Interest to Wilmington Trust, NA, Trustee of the

Jeffrey P. Blanchard 2013 Family Trust

(NO. 2015-CI-06197 IN 224TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

MOTION FEE

REPORTER'S RECORD

CLERK'S RECORD

MOTION FEE

STATEWIDE EFILING FEE

FILING

SUPREME COURT CHAPTER 51

FEE

INDIGENT

$10.00

$0.00

$82.00

$10.00

$20.00

$100.00

$50.00

$25.00

E-PAID

UNKNOWN

PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

LANCE CLACK

LANCE V CLACK

LANCE CLACK

KATHY GRANT

KATHY GRANT

KATHY GRANT

KATHY GRANT

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Fourth District of Texas, this December 16, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
§ 750.65 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 or omission 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 presented.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                  5

       
<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                       JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                         DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                   383,321
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                             26,352
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         409,673
<PP&E>                                 2,198,314
<DEPRECIATION>                           200,956
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         2,473,759
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    982,105
<BONDS>                                        0
<COMMON>                               1,427,087
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           2,473,759
<SALES>                                  729,536
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         896,580
<CGS>                                    405,053
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            405,053
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        89,748
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          128,781
<INCOME-TAX>                              42,086
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                              86,695
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                .06
        

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A0140. GARY L. KING v. HERITAGE HEALTHCARE OF MOULTRIE,

LLC.

Gary L. King filed a notice of appeal from the superior court’s April 27, 2012

order denying his motion to vacate a final arbitration award. On November 19, 2012,

the trial court dismissed King’s appeal because he had failed to pay the appeal-filing

fee. King then filed an application for discretionary review. On January 7, 2013, this

Court granted King’s application for discretionary appeal on the ground that “a trial

court’s order dismissing a properly filed direct appeal is itself subject to a direct

appeal.” American Medical Security Group v. Parker, 284 Ga. 102, 103 (2) (663

SE2d 697) (2008). See Case No. A13D0165. Our order directed King to file “a notice

of appeal from the order at issue” within 10 days of the date of the order. See OCGA

§ 5-6-34 (b). However, it does not appear from the record in this case that King ever

filed a notice of appeal from the November 19, 2012 order dismissing his appeal. The

only notices of appeal in the record are King’s notice of appeal from the April 27,

2012 order denying his motion to vacate the final arbitration award and notice of

appeal from the September 10, 2012 order denying his motion to proceed in forma

pauperis. We lack jurisdiction. 

The timely filing of a notice of appeal is an absolute requirement to confer

jurisdiction on this Court. White v. White, 188 Ga. App. 556 (373 SE2d 824) (1988).

Because King did not file a notice of appeal from the November 19, 2012 order

dismissing his appeal within 10 days asrequired by the order granting his application,

he forfeited hisright to pursue the appeal.Accordingly, King’s appeal is DISMISSED

for lack of jurisdiction. See OCGA § 5-6-48 (b) (1); Barnes v. Justis, 223 Ga. App.

June 16, 2015
671, 671-672 (478 SE2d 402) (1996).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

06/16/2015
#### Deree & Company, defendant in error, v. Louis G. Neiman et al., plaintiffs in error.

Gen. No. 29,201.

Judgment for plaintiffs on verdict. Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William R. Fetzer, Judge, presiding. Heard in the first division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1924.

Affirmed for lack of bill of exceptions.

Opinion filed May 11, 1925.

L. A. Sherwin, for plaintiffs in error.

No appearance for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Johnston

delivered the opinion of the court.
Exhibit 15


ENSERCH Corporation:

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited condensed
consolidated interim financial information of ENSERCH Corporation  (the
"Corporation") for the periods ended March 31, 1999 and 1998, as indicated in
our report dated May 13, 1999; because we did not perform an audit, we
expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in the
Corporation's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
1999, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-43811 on
Form S-3, and Registration Statement No. 333-43811-01 on Post Effective
Amendment No.1 to Form S-3, of ENSERCH Corporation.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c)
under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of
Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Dallas, Texas
May 13, 1999
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 674 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 674

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the retirement 
   income account rules relating to church controlled organizations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 21, 2017

  Mr. Cardin (for himself, Mr. Crapo, and Mr. Roberts) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the retirement 
   income account rules relating to church controlled organizations.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF RETIREMENT INCOME ACCOUNT RULES RELATING TO 
              CHURCH-CONTROLLED ORGANIZATIONS.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 403(b)(9) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``(including an 
employee described in section 414(e)(3)(B))'' after ``employee 
described in paragraph (1)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to years beginning before, on, or after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
1239.7401 Definition. As used in this subpart— *Federal record,* as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3301, means all recorded information, regardless of form or characteristics, made or received by a Federal agency under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency or its legitimate successor as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the United States Government or because of the informational value of data in them. The term Federal record: ( 1 ) Includes all DOT records.
( 2 ) Does not include personal materials.
( 3 ) Applies to records created, received, or maintained by contractors pursuant to a DOT contract.
( 4 ) May include deliverables and documentation associated with deliverables.
#### Thomas Harris, Respondent, v. Ralph Beyda, Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Ralph Beyda, Appellant, v. Robert Kurland et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.) Robert Kurland, Respondent, v. Thomas M. Harris, Respondent, and Ralph Beyda, Appellant. (Action No. 3.) Thomas Harris, Respondent, v. Robert Kurland, Respondent, and Ralph Beyda, Appellant. (Action No. 4.)

In actions to recover damages for injuries to person and property, Ralph Beyda, defendant in Actions Nos. 1, 3 and 4, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 12, 1961, which denied his motion to remove and consolidate Actions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 with Action No. 1. Order affirmed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements to respondents Harris and Kurland. No opinion. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1 – SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**





ORION
      DIVERSIFIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC


CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
      THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I,  Irwin
      Pearl, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
      Orion Diversified Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the period ended January
      31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
      Annual Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the
      financial condition and results of operations of Orion Diversified Technologies,
      Inc.




Date:  September
      4, 2007





/s/
      Irwin Pearl


Chief
      Executive Officer


Date:  September
      4, 2007





/s/
      Irwin Pearl


Chief
      Financial Officer


Date:
      September 4, 2007