alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §2666. Definitions

For the purposes of this subchapter—

(a) "rural development" means the planning, financing, and development of facilities and services in rural areas that contribute to making those areas desirable places in which to live and make private and business investments; the planning, development, and expansion of business and industry in rural areas to provide increased employment and income; the planning, development, conservation, and use of land, water, and other natural resources of rural areas to maintain or improve the quality of the environment for people and business in rural areas; and the building or improvement of institutional, organizational, and leadership capacities of rural citizens and leaders to define and resolve their own community problems;

(b) "State" means the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; and

(c) "small farm" means any farm (1) producing family net income from all sources (farm and nonfarm) below the median nonmetropolitan income of the State; (2) operated by a family dependent on farming for a significant though not necessarily a majority of its income; and (3) on which family members provide most of the labor and management.

(Pub. L. 92–419, title V, §506, as added Pub. L. 97–98, title XIV, §1444(a), Dec. 22, 1981, 95 Stat. 1326.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2666, Pub. L. 92–419, title V, §506, Aug. 30, 1972, 86 Stat. 674, related to withholding of funds, the keeping of a separate account in the Treasury, appeal by a State to Congress, covering of moneys into the Treasury, and State money replacement, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 97–98, title XIV, §1444(a), Dec. 22, 1981, 95 Stat. 1326.

Provisions similar to those comprising this section were contained in former section 2667 of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 97–98.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Dec. 22, 1981, see section 1801 of Pub. L. 97–98, set out as a note under section 4301 of this title.
# FOIA Log November 2021

# image3.emf

# image4.emf

# image5.emf

# image1.emf

# image2.emf

# image6.png
#### 1533.203 Applicability.

The Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) will hear appeals from final decisions of EPA Contracting Officers issued pursuant to the Contracts Disputes Act. The rules and regulations of the CBCA appear in 48 CFR chapter 61.

[73 FR 1981, Jan. 11, 2008]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-4974

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NADER ZAKI ABDELHAY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Vi rginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (CR-03-89) Submitted: May 26, 2004 Decided: August 11, 2004 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James O. Broccoletti, ZOBY & BROCCOLETTI, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Michael C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Following a bench trial, Nader Zaki Abdelhay was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000), and making materially false statements to a federal agent, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) (2000). The district court sentenced Abdelhay to concurrent sentences of forty-one months of imprisonment on each count, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. On appeal, Abdelhay maintains that the evidence at trial was insufficient to find him guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. Abdelhay stipulated at trial that he had been convicted of a felony and that the firearm and ammunition in question had traveled in interstate commerce. In addition, there was evidence establishing that Abdelhay exercised dominion and control over the firearms and ammunition found at his place of employment. Therefore, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence at trial to find Abdelhay guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. SeeGlasser v. United States , 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). Accordingly, we affirm Abdelhay’s § 922(g) conviction. 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. AFFIRMED
Case: 1:12-cv-00826 Document #: 37 Filed: 04/23/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:111

Case: 1:12-cv-00826 Document #: 37 Filed: 04/23/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:112
#### The People of the State of New York *ex*rel. Ronald R. Denzel, Appellant, v. Walter B. Martin, as Warden of Attica Prison, Respondent.

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. (Appeal from Order of Wyoming County Court dismissing the writ of habeas corpus and remanding relator to the custody of the Warden of Attica State Prison.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
### §1457. Publication and distribution of citizenship textbooks; use of naturalization fees

Authorization is granted for the publication and distribution of the citizenship textbook described in subsection (b) of section 1443 of this title and for the reimbursement of the appropriation of the Department of Justice upon the records of the Treasury Department from the naturalization fees deposited in the Treasury through the Service for the cost of such publication and distribution, such reimbursement to be made upon statements by the Attorney General of books so published and distributed.

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 2, §346, 66 Stat. 266.)

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

#### Abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service and Transfer of Functions

For abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service, transfer of functions, and treatment of related references, see note set out under section 1551 of this title.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick

JANETTE R. OGLE

v. Record No. 2708-95-4 MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MAY 14, 1996 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION (John B. Delaney; Delaney, McCarthy, Colton & Botzin, on briefs), for appellant. (Barry P. Heitin, on brief), for appellees.

Janette R. Ogle contends that the Workers' Compensation Commission erred in denying her application on the ground that her March 10, 1994 fall down a stairway did not arise out of her employment. Upon reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the commission's decision. Rule

5A:27. On March 10, 1994, while in the course of her employment, Ogle fell down a three-step carpeted stairway. Ogle was wearing rubber soled, deep tread shoes. Ogle testified that she had descended one flight of stairs and was beginning to descend a second when her foot "stuck," causing her to lose her balance.

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.2 She fell, striking her head, wrists, left shoulder, and twisting her neck and back. Ogle noticed nothing unusual about the steps or the carpet. The employer's post-accident inspection revealed no defect in the stairs or carpet. "To prove the 'arising out of' element, [in a case involving injuries sustained from falling down stairs at work,] [Ogle] must show that a condition of the workplace either caused or

contributed to her fall." Southside Virginia Training Ctr. v.

Shell , 20 Va. App. 199, 202, 455 S.E.2d 761, 763 (1995) (citing County of Chesterfield v. Johnson , 237 Va. 180, 184, 376 S.E.2d 73, 76 (1989)). "Whether an injury arises out of the employment is a mixed question of law and fact and is reviewable by the appellate court." Plumb Rite Plumbing Serv. v. Barbour , 8 Va. App. 482, 483, 382 S.E.2d 305, 305 (1989). However, unless we conclude that Ogle proved, as a matter of law, that her employment caused her injury, the commission's finding is binding and conclusive on appeal. Tomko v. Michael's Plastering Co. , 210 Va. 697, 699, 173 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1970). Although Ogle was in the course of her employment when her injury occurred, her evidence did not show that any defect in the stairs or the carpet or any condition peculiar to her workplace caused her to fall down the steps and injure herself. Ogle could not explain why her foot stuck on the carpeted stair nor was there any evidence that the placement of the handrails in the stairway had anything to do with her fall. Because no evidence3 showed a causal connection between the conditions of Ogle's employment and her fall, we are unable to find that she proved as a matter of law that her injury arose out of her employment. For the reasons stated, we affirm the commission's decision.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 11

<TABLE>
                                        
                      Emerson Radio Corp. and Subsidiaries
                              Exhibit to Form 10-Q
                    Computation of Primary Earnings Per Share
                      (in thousands, except per share data)

<CAPTION>
                          Six Months Ended         Three Months Ended          
                            September 30,             September 30,          
                           1997       1996          1997        1996
                                                           
<S>                      <C>        <C>           <C>          <C>
Net earnings (loss)      $  (703)   $(10,766)     $ 2,019      $(6,043)
                                                           
Preferred Stock      
dividends                    245         350         N/A           175
                                                           
Net earnings (loss)                                        
   attributable to                                         
   common shareholders   $  (948)   $(11,116)     $ 2,019      $(6,218)
                                                           
Weighted average number                                    
   of actual shares                                        
   outstanding            41,487      40,274       42,372       40,295
                                                           
Additional shares                                          
   assuming conversion                                     
   or exercise of:                                         
   Preferred stock (a)         -           -       17,312            -
                                                           
Weighted average number                                   
   of common and common                                       
   equivalent shares                                       
   outstanding            41,487      40,274       59,684       40,295
                                                           
Primary earnings (loss)                                   
   per share             $ (0.02)    $ (0.28)     $  0.03      $ (0.15)

_________________________
(a)  Based  on the assumed conversion of $8 million of Series A Preferred  Stock
into  Common  Stock  at a price per share equal to 80% of the  weighted  average
market value of a share of Common Stock, determined on a quarterly basis.
</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.1



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350

(Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company



In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Burlington
Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Matthew K. Rose,
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Thomas N. Hund, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



(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.



Dated: May 1, 2003



|/s/    MATTHEW K.
ROSE                                          |  |  |  | /s/    THOMAS N.
HUND                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Matthew K. Rose Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Thomas N. Hund Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company and will be retained by The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



E-3
Exhibit 32(b)



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ethyl Corporation (the Company) for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David A. Fiorenza, 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 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.



|    |  |                             
|--- |  | ----------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ D. A. Fiorenza          
|    |  | David A. Fiorenza           
|    |  | Vice President and Treasurer
|    |  | May 4, 2004
#### 1352.271-83 Government review, comment, acceptance and approval.

As prescribed in 48 CFR 1371.114, insert the following clause:

# Government Review, Comment, Acceptance and Approval (APR 2010)

(a) Documentation, including drawings and other engineering products and reports, required by the contract to be submitted for review, comment, acceptance or approval will be acted upon by the Government within 30 calendar days after receipt by the Government, unless another period of time is specified.

(b) The Government shall respond to Condition Reports, as defined in the Specifications, within five (5) working days, unless the Government notifies the contractor that a longer period of time will be required. If the contractor requests a response in less than five (5) working days, the Government will attempt to accommodate the request, but does not guarantee a response in less than the time limits stated above.

(c) Review, comment, acceptance or approval by the Government as required under this contract and applicable specifications shall not relieve the contractor of its obligation to comply with the specifications and with all other requirements of the contract, nor shall it impose upon the Government any liability it would not have had in the absence of such review, comment and acceptance or approval.

(End of clause)

[75 FR 10570, Mar. 8, 2010; 75 FR 14496, Mar. 26, 2010]
#### Dimitrios Psomatithis, Appellant, v Transoceanic Cable Ship Co., Inc., Respondent.

[832 NYS2d 808]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries pursuant to the Jones Act (46 USC Appendix § 688), the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hubsher, J.), dated December 22, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action to recover damages for failure to provide maintenance and cure except insofar as the second cause of action sought out-of-pocket expenses.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, with costs.

In light of our disposition of related appeals from orders dated December 22, 2005, and April 19, 2006, this appeal has been rendered academic (see *Psomatithis v Transoceanic Cable Ship Co., Inc.,*39 AD3d 837 [2007] [decided herewith]).

Motion by the respondent to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 22, 2004, on the ground that the appeal has been rendered academic by two orders of the same court dated December 22, 2005, and April 19, 2006, respectively. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated June 9, 2006, the motion was held in abeyance and was referred to the Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission of this appeal and the appeals from the orders dated December 22, 2005, and April 19, 2006, pending under Appellate Division docket Nos. 2006-05161 and 2006-05166, respectively.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeals, it is

Ordered that the motion is denied as academic. Schmidt, J.E, Santucei, Krausman and Covello, JJ., concur.
### §906a. Use of funds outside the United States or its territories prohibited

No funds provided under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended [7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.], shall be used outside the United States or any of its territories.

(Pub. L. 93–32, §10, May 11, 1973, 87 Stat. 71.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Rural Electrification Act of 1936, referred to in text, is 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 was not enacted as part of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 which comprises this chapter.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective May 11, 1973, see section 12 of Pub. L. 93–32, set out as a note under section 930 of this title.
-  Home 
-  Regulations & Policies 
-  Handbooks & Manuals 
-  Aircraft Handbooks & Manuals 

# In This Section

                      -  Advisory Circulars (ACs) 
                      -  Airworthiness Directives (ADs) 
                      -  FAA Regulations                          -  Overview 
                        -  Regulatory Consistency Communication Board (RCCB) 
                      -  Forms 
                      -  Handbooks & Manuals                          -  Overview 
                        -  Aircraft 
                        -  Aviation 
                        -  Examiners & Inspectors 
                      -  Orders & Notices 
                      -  Pilot Records Database 
                      -  Policy & Guidance                          -  Overview 
                        -  Environmental Policy & Guidance 
                      -  Rulemaking                          -  Overview 
                        -  Committees and Documents 
                        -  Notice of Public Meetings 
                        -  Recently Published Rulemaking Documents 

# Aircraft Handbooks & Manuals

Any reproduction or modification of this material from original FAA source material is solely the responsibility of the publisher.

## Top Tasks

- Read the Aeronautical Information Manual
- Download the Airplane Flying Handbook
- Download the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge
- Download the Instrument Procedures Handbook
- Search DRS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,482
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,078
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    330,157
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               346,927
<PP&E>                                         234,373
<DEPRECIATION>                                 232,250
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 353,130
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          813,438
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        97,014
<OTHER-SE>                                   (557,322)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   353,130
<SALES>                                         66,117
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                66,119
<CGS>                                           42,696
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,696
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,870
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,553
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,553
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,533
<EPS-BASIC>                                       .017
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .017


</TABLE>
#### State Division of Human Rights, Respondent, v Genesee Hospital, Petitioner.

Order of appeal board unanimously affirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed. Memorandum: In November, 1976 a regional director of the State Division of Human Rights issued a determination and order after investigation which found probable cause to support claimant’s allegations of discrimination against petitioner. Approximately two and one-half months later, the commissioner of the division ordered the proceeding reopened pursuant to 9 NYCRR 465.13 (presently repealed and replaced by 9 NYCRR 465.18), and vacated the regional director’s determination of probable cause. In October, 1977, approximately eight months later, the regional director issued a finding that there was no probable cause to support complainant’s claim of discrimination and dismissed her complaint. The State Human Rights Appeal Board annulled the division’s dismissal of the complaint "without going into the merits” because the procedures outlined in section 297 (subd 4, par a) of the Executive Law (Human Rights Law) were not followed. Petitioner appeals from the board’s order. It is undisputed that the board has jurisdiction to review the procedures followed by the division (Executive Law, § 297-a, subd 7). Simply stated, the issue in this case is whether the commissioner exceeded his authority by vacating the regional director’s finding of probable cause and ordering further investigation. Section 297 (subd 4, par a) of the Executive Law provides that "unless the division has dismissed the complaint or issued an order stating the terms of a conciliation agreement not objected to by the complaint”, the division shall order a public hearing. By reopening the proceeding and vacating the regional director’s finding of probable cause, the commissioner disregarded this statutory directive. To the extent that the State Division of Human Rights regulation (9 NYCRR 465.13) mandates a different result, we conclude that it conflicts "with the provisions of the statute [and is] inconsistent with its design and purpose” and should, therefore, be given no weight *(Connolly v O’Malley,*17 AD2d 411, 417; see, also, *Royal Globe Ins. Co. v Connolly,*54 AD2d 1117). The appeal board’s decision is affirmed. (Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law, § 298.) Present—Marsh, P. J., Moule, Simons, Hancock, Jr., and Schnepp, JJ.