alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §94. Supplying duplicates of standards; examination, etc., of naval stores and certification thereof

The Secretary of Agriculture shall provide, if practicable, any interested persons with duplicates of the official naval stores standards of the United States upon request accompanied by tender of satisfactory security for the return thereof, under such regulations as he may prescribe. The Secretary of Agriculture shall examine, if practicable, upon request of any interested person, any naval stores and shall analyze, classify, or grade the same under such regulations as he may prescribe. He shall furnish a certificate showing the analysis, classification, or grade of such naval stores, which certificate shall be prima facie evidence of the analysis, classification, or grade of such naval stores and of the contents of any package from which the same may have been taken, as well as of the correctness of such analysis, classification, or grade and shall be admissible as such in any court.

(Mar. 3, 1923, ch. 217, §4, 42 Stat. 1436; Pub. L. 97–35, title I, §159(a)(1), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 376.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1981—Pub. L. 97–35 struck out "on tender of the cost thereof as required by him," after "grade the same".

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

#### Effective Date of 1981 Amendment

Pub. L. 97–35, title I, §159(b), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 376, provided that: "The provisions of this section [amending this section and section 98 of this title] shall become effective October 1, 1981".
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7174
In Re: VINCENT EUGENE LINEBERGER, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-103-3) Submitted: November 30, 2000 Decided: December 14, 2000 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vincent Eugene Lineberger, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Vincent Eugene Lineberger petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to act upon his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). The district court entered a final order on September 5, 2000, denying relief on Lineberger’s habeas petition. Accordingly, we grant Lineberger leave to proceed in forma pauperis but deny the mandamus petition as moot. 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
APPENDIX D

EMISSIONS PROJECTIONS

Bureau of Air Quality

Department of Environmental Protection
This page blank for copying purposes.
### §7752. Buildings, land, people, claims, and agreements

#### (a) In general

To the extent necessary to carry out this chapter, the Secretary may acquire and maintain all real or personal property for special purposes and employ any persons, make grants, and enter into any contracts, cooperative agreements, memoranda of understanding, or other agreements.

#### (b) Tort claims

#### (1) In general

Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary may pay tort claims in the manner authorized in the first paragraph of section 2672 of title 28, when the claims arise outside the United States in connection with activities that are authorized under this chapter.

#### (2) Requirements of claim

A claim may not be allowed under this subsection unless the claim is presented in writing to the Secretary within 2 years after the date on which the claim accrues.

(Pub. L. 106–224, title IV, §432, June 20, 2000, 114 Stat. 452.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b)(1), was in the original "this title", meaning title IV of Pub. L. 106–224, June 20, 2000, 114 Stat. 438, known as the Plant Protection Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of title IV to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 7701 of this title and Tables.

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

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of the Secretary of Agriculture relating to agricultural import and entry inspection activities under this chapter to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see sections 231, 551(d), 552(d), and 557 of Title 6, Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6.
### §1504. Cancellation of United States passports and Consular Reports of Birth

(a) The Secretary of State is authorized to cancel any United States passport or Consular Report of Birth, or certified copy thereof, if it appears that such document was illegally, fraudulently, or erroneously obtained from, or was created through illegality or fraud practiced upon, the Secretary. The person for or to whom such document has been issued or made shall be given, at such person's last known address, written notice of the cancellation of such document, together with the procedures for seeking a prompt post-cancellation hearing. The cancellation under this section of any document purporting to show the citizenship status of the person to whom it was issued shall affect only the document and not the citizenship status of the person in whose name the document was issued.

(b) For purposes of this section, the term "Consular Report of Birth" refers to the report, designated as a "Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States", issued by a consular officer to document a citizen born abroad.

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 4, §361, as added Pub. L. 103–416, title I, §107(a), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4309.)
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         January 7, 2021.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 21, 2020, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 185 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2021-53, CP2021-55.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2020-29307 Filed 1-6-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### Steve Weidman et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. David F. Klot, Appellant-Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs-respondents-appellants. It appears that no adequate findings were made as required by section 440 of the Civil Practice Act. In the absence of such findings, the record being complete, this court may make them *(Famous Sea Food House*v. *Skouras,*272 App. Div. 258). From the testimony given at the trial and the documents received in evidence we find that the defendant entered into a contract with the plaintiff under which the defendant agreed to furnish a DC-6 airplane to the plaintiffs for a flight from Few York to Miami. We likewise find that the defendant breached the contract in failing to furnish such airplane to the plaintiffs’ damage in the amount indicated by the judgment. The defendant’s contention that he merely assigned his right to such airplane is not supported by the evidence. Likewise his position that he merely acted as agent for the airline is not supported by the evidence. It is true that the plaintiffs recovered a judgment against the airlines in a suit instituted in Florida, on the theory of the defendant’s agency. However, that is no bar to the relief sought against this defendant inasmuch as it has been shown that the defendant acted on his own behalf as well as an agent for the airline *(Meyer*v. *Redmond,*205 F. Y. 478; *Shoenthal*V. *Bernstein,*276 App. Div. 200). Despite the existence of a disclosed principal, personal liability may be imposed upon an agent where there is clear and explicit evidence of an intention to assume such liability *(Hernandez*v. *Brookdale Hills,*194 App. Div. 369). The fact that the agreement was made in the defendant’s name and executed by him, supported by evidence of the independent nature of his travel bureau operation, leads to the conclusion that he undertook, in his own behalf, to carry out the terms of the contract. In all, the record warrants a finding that there was an intention on his part to personally assume the obligations of the contract. Thus, we conclude that the position here taken by the plaintiffs is not inconsistent with the one in the Florida suit. In any event even were they inconsistent, such issue was not properly raised in this action. We also find that the release upon which the defendant places reliance was clearly conditioned upon the repayment of the fares to the plaintiffs. The fares not having been repaid the release is ineffective. We further find that there was no offer to return the fares to the plaintiffs and that the failure to do so was not occasioned through any fault of the plaintiffs. The fraud allegations of the second cause of action not having been proven the dismissal thereof was proper. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McFally, Stevens and Bastow, JJ.
#### BRADY, Appellant, v. BRADY et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 17, 1903.)

Action by Anna Brady against Mary Brady and others.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, upon opinion of ANDREWS, J., delivered at Special Term. 65 N. Y. Supp. 621.

SPRING and STOVER, JJ., dissent.
Exhibit 32.1
 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION*
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.
  /s/ Steven A. Davis
Steven A. DavisChairman and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
 
 *
    
    This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code, and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that Section. This certification
shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities
Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as otherwise stated in such filing. -26-
§ 750.1 Scope of subpart A. ( a ) *General.* ( 1 ) The Judge Advocate General is responsible for the administration and supervision of the resolution of claims arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act (subpart B of this part), the Military Claims Act (subpart C of this chapter), the Nonscope Claims Act (subpart D of this part), the Personnel Claims Act (part 751 of this chapter), the Foreign Claims Act, the International Agreements Claims Act pertaining to cost sharing of claims pursuant to international agreements, the Federal Claims Collection Act (subpart A of part 757 of this chapter), the Medical Care Recovery Act and Health Care Services Incurred on Behalf of Covered Beneficiaries: Collection from Third-party Payers (subpart B of part 757 of this chapter), and postal claims.
( 2 ) The Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (Claims and Tort Litigation) (Code 15) is the manager of the Navy claims system established to evaluate, adjudicate, and provide litigation support for claims arising under the acts listed above and is responsible to the Judge Advocate General for the management of that system. The claims system consists of the Claims and Tort Litigation Division of the Office of the Judge Advocate General (Code 15), and the attorneys and support personnel assigned to the Tort Claims Unit at Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia. For economy of language, Naval Legal Service Offices and Naval Legal Service Office Detachments are referred to as Naval Legal Service Command Activities.
( 3 ) Commanding officers of commands receiving claims are responsible for complying with the guidance on investigations in Sec. 750.2 and Sec. 750.3, the guidance on handling and forwarding claims found in Sec. 750.5, and the guidance provided in the JAG Instruction 5800.7E (JAGMAN)[1] of 20 June 2007.
( b ) This subpart A delineates general investigative and claims-processing requirements to be followed in the handling of all incidents and claims within the provisions of this part. Where the general provisions of this subpart A conflict with the specific provisions of any subsequent subpart of this part, the specific provisions govern.
[57 FR 4722, Feb. 7, 1992, as amended at 72 FR 53417, Sept. 19, 2007] Footnotes -
750.1
[1] JAG Instruction 5800.7E (JAGMAN) may be retrieved at the official Web site of the United States Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps at *http://www.jag.navy.mil .*
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 13, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2664-2665]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00508]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee; 
Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee; Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical 
Advisory Committee; Termination

AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary of Energy, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Termination of federal advisory committees.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy is publishing this notice to announce 
that it is terminating the following three Federal Advisory Committees 
(FACAs) effective January 7, 2021: The Biomass Research and Development 
Technical Advisory Committee (BR&D TAC); Methane Hydrate Advisory 
Committee (MHAC); and Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Advisory 
Committee (HTAC).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kurt Heckman, Director, Office of 
Board and Councils, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue 
SW, Washington, DC 20585; Phone: (202) 586-1212; email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d1baa4a3a5ffb9b4b2babcb0bf91b9a0ffb5beb4ffb6bea7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fc97898e88d294999f97919d92bc948dd2989399d29b938a">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BR&D TAC, MHAC, and HTAC FACAs are being 
terminated under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix) and 41 CFR 102-3.55, and the 
Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), effective 
January 7, 2021.
    Signing Authority: This document of the Department of Energy was 
signed on January 7, 2021, by Briana McClain, Acting Committee 
Management Officer, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary 
of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is 
maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance 
with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the 
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to 
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as 
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative 
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon 
publication in the Federal Register.


[[Page 2665]]


    Signed in Washington, DC, on January 8, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021-00508 Filed 1-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         1,372,293
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  437,221
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,820,514
<PP&E>                                         28,575
<DEPRECIATION>                                 7,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,934,416
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,729,199
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       400,842
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,671,816)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,934,416
<SALES>                                        10,741,248
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               16,478,328
<CGS>                                          10,448,725
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  11,467,421
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               7,922,361
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               71,867
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             230,424
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,360,603)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   69,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,429,603)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,429,603)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.09)


</TABLE>
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 1 of 37 PageID #:114
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 2 of 37 PageID #:115
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 3 of 37 PageID #:116
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 4 of 37 PageID #:117
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 5 of 37 PageID #:118
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 6 of 37 PageID #:119
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 7 of 37 PageID #:120
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 8 of 37 PageID #:121
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 9 of 37 PageID #:122
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 10 of 37 PageID #:123
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 11 of 37 PageID #:124
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 12 of 37 PageID #:125
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 13 of 37 PageID #:126
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 14 of 37 PageID #:127
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 15 of 37 PageID #:128
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 16 of 37 PageID #:129
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 17 of 37 PageID #:130
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 18 of 37 PageID #:131
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 19 of 37 PageID #:132
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 20 of 37 PageID #:133
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 21 of 37 PageID #:134
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 22 of 37 PageID #:135
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 23 of 37 PageID #:136
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 24 of 37 PageID #:137
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 25 of 37 PageID #:138
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 26 of 37 PageID #:139
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 27 of 37 PageID #:140
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 28 of 37 PageID #:141
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 29 of 37 PageID #:142
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 30 of 37 PageID #:143
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 31 of 37 PageID #:144
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 32 of 37 PageID #:145
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 33 of 37 PageID #:146
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 34 of 37 PageID #:147
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 35 of 37 PageID #:148
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 36 of 37 PageID #:149
Case: 1:12-cv-00860 Document #: 1-3 Filed: 02/07/12 Page 37 of 37 PageID #:150
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

TONY RAY PLUMLEE,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 13

- 00033

- CR

Appeal from the

355th Judicial District Court

of Hood County, Texas

(TC#CR 12202)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the judgment of

conviction should be reformed to reflect a $10,000 .00 fine . We therefore affirm the judgment of

the trial court as reformed. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

B efore McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.