alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 855.1 Policy. The Air Force establishes and uses its airfields to support the scope and level of operations necessary to carry out missions worldwide. The Congress funds airfields in response to Air Force requirements, but also specifies that civil aviation access is a national priority to be accommodated when it does not jeopardize an installation's military utility. The Air Force engages in dialogue with the civil aviation community and the Federal Aviation Administration to ensure mutual understanding of long-term needs for the national air transportation system and programmed military force structure requirements. To implement the national policy and to respond to requests for access, the Air Force must have policies that balance such requests with military needs. Civil aircraft access to Air Force airfields on foreign territory requires host nation approval. ( a ) The Air Force will manage two programs that are generally used to grant civil aircraft access to its airfields: civil aircraft landing permits and joint-use agreements. Other arrangements for access will be negotiated as required for specific purposes. ( 1 ) Normally, landing permits will be issued only for civil aircraft operating in support of official Government business. Other types of use may be authorized if justified by exceptional circumstances. Access will be granted on an equitable basis.
( 2 ) The Air Force will consider only proposals for joint use that do not compromise operations, security, readiness, safety, environment, and quality of life. Further, only proposals submitted by authorized local Government representatives eligible to sponsor a public airport will be given the comprehensive evaluation required to conclude a joint-use agreement.
( 3 ) Any aircraft operator with an inflight emergency may land at any Air Force airfield without prior authorization. An inflight emergency is defined as a situation that makes continued flight hazardous.
( b ) Air Force requirements will take precedence on Air Force airfields over all civil aircraft operations, whether they were previously authorized or not.
( c ) Civil aircraft use of Air Force airfields in the United States will be subject to Federal laws and regulations. Civil aircraft use of Air Force airfields in foreign countries will be subject to US Federal laws and regulations that have extraterritorial effect and to applicable international agreements with the country in which the Air Force installation is located.
### §238. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section transferred to section 1557 of this title.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Martin Joseph Cunneely, Appellant, v. J. Edwin La Vallee, as Warden of Clinton Prison, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the County Court, Clinton County, dismissing relator’s writ of habeas corpus without a hearing. Relator alleges that section 472 of the 'Code of Criminal Procedure was not complied with at the time of his sentencing on October 29, 1948, following a plea of guilty to the crime of robbery, first degree. The court below denied the writ on the grounds that relator was represented by counsel at Ms sentencing citing *People ex rel. Thierry*v. *La Vallee*(11 A D 2d 579). The record before the court below, however, does not substantiate this position. While the record mdicates relator was assigned counsel on October 19, 1948, it does not indicate that such counsel was present on the 29th and yet at the same time specifically Mdicates a codefendant appeared with his court-appointed counsel. Respondent did not answer relator’s petition or submit any proof in rebuttal thereof to the court below. In view of this state of the record, the court below should properly have held a hearing on the issue. Before this court respondent urges. there was compliance with section 472 because of the production of evidence that October 29, 1948 was the last day of the term of the sentencing court *(People ex rel. Lipschultz*v. *Jackson,*8 A D 2d 642; *People*v. *Spencer,*179 N. Y. 408) and additionally because it produced an affidavit from relator’s court-appointed attorney asserting he was in fact present at the sentencing. This evidence was not, however, before the court below nor has relator had an opportunity to controvert it should he so choose (see *People ex rel. Kelly*v. *Wilkins,*14 A D 2d 490). Order reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and matter remitted to the County Court of Clinton County for further proceedMgs M accordance herewith. Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 18

- 00206

- CR

CARLOS DEMON HARRIS, Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law Harrison County, Texas Trial Court No. 2017

- 0424

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 15, 2017, Carlos Demon Harris pled guilty to and was placed on deferred
adjudication community supervision for one year for driving while his license was invalid with a
previous conviction for the same offense. See T EX

. T RANSP

. C ODE A NN

. § 521.457 (West 2018 )

. On September 12, 2018, the State filed a motion to proceed with an adjudication of Harris’ guilt.
On November 15, 2018, after a hearing, the trial court found all the State’s allegations contained
in the motion to adjudicate true, revoked Ha rris’ community supervision, and sentenced him to
100 days in the Harrison County Jail.
In his sole point of error on appeal, Harris argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to
revoke his community supervision because it had already expired before the State filed its motion
to adjudicate his guilt. Because the record reveals that Harris’ period of deferred adjudication
community supervision was extended, we overrule his sole point of error.
A trial court retains jurisdiction to hold a revocation hearing
and to proceed with an adjudication of guilt, regardless of whether the period of deferred adjudication community supervision imposed on the defendant has expired, if before the expiration of the supervision period:

(1) the attorney representing the state filed a motion to proceed with the adjudication; and

(2) a capias is issued for the arrest of the defendant.

T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 42A.108 (West 2018).
Because Harris was placed on deferred adjudication com munity supervision for one year
on August 15, 2017, he argues that his community supervision expired on August 15, 2018, and
the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the State’s September 12, 2018, motion. However, on3 August 13, 2018, the trial court exte nded Harris’ community supervision for six months after he
failed to (1) pay fines and fees as ordered and (2) obtain a valid driver’s license or occupational
license, as required by the terms and conditions of his deferred adjudication community
supervisi on. Therefore, Harris’ period of deferred adjudication community supervision did not
expire until February 15, 2019.
We overrule Harris’ sole point of error on appeal and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Ralph K. Burgess Justice

Date S ubmitted: April 3, 2019 Date Decided: April 5 , 2019

Do Not Publish
#### Marshall Naylor, Respondent, v. William L. Heffernan, Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed, without costs of this appeal to either party, and motion granted, without costs. Memorandum: The denial of the motion on the papers before the court was an improvident exercise of discretion. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Special Term, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the action on ground that plaintiff has failed to prosecute the same diligently.) Present—Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Del Veeehio, JJ.
#### William Langert, Appellant, v. City of New York, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously reversed upon the law and upon the facts, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. It is no longer necessary or fitting to cite authority for the proposition that when an action is dismissed at the close of plaintiff’s case plaintiff is entitled to the best construction of the evidence that the testimony will warrant. Applying that test, there was testimony that at the point where plaintiff sought to cross the roadway there were ruts of ice eight inches deep; that the city had notice of the condition by virtue of the fact that the area was flooded from a water main that had burst; and that the condition arose a sufficient length of time before the happening of the accident and it became a factual question whether the failure to correct it was negligence. These facts establish a sufficient case to go to the jury *(Smith*v. *City of New York,*282 App. Div. 495, affd. 307 N. Y. 843). In so holding we do not intimate that the facts as ultimately found will accord with plaintiff’s testimony, or that a verdict based on that testimony, if controverted, should survive. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Steuer and Staley, JJ.
### §5925f. Farm business management

#### (a) In general

The Secretary may make competitive research and extension grants for the purpose of improving the farm management knowledge and skills of agricultural producers by maintaining and expanding a national, publicly available farm financial management database to support improved farm management.

#### (b) Selection criteria

In allocating funds made available to carry out this section, the Secretary may give priority to grants that—

(1) demonstrate an ability to work directly with agricultural producers;

(2) collaborate with farm management educational programs and associations;

(3) address the farm management needs of a variety of crops and regions of the United States; and

(4) contribute data to the national farm financial management database.

#### (c) Administration

Paragraphs (4), (7), (8), and (11)(B) of subsection (b) of section 3157 of this title shall apply with respect to the making of grants under this section.

#### (d) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section—

(1) such sums as are necessary for fiscal year 2013; and

(2) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2023.

(Pub. L. 101–624, title XVI, §1672D, as added Pub. L. 110–234, title VII, §7208, May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1241; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title VII, §7208, June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 2002; amended Pub. L. 113–79, title VII, §7213, Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 886; Pub. L. 115–334, title VII, §7211, Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4811.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 enacted identical sections. Pub. L. 110–234 was repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246.

#### Amendments

2018—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 115–334, §7211(1), amended subsec. (a) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "The Secretary may make competitive research and extension grants for the purpose of—

"(1) improving the farm management knowledge and skills of agricultural producers; and

"(2) establishing and maintaining a national, publicly available farm financial management database to support improved farm management."

Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 115–334, §7211(2)(A), substituted "educational programs and" for "and producer".

Subsec. (b)(4). Pub. L. 115–334, §7211(2)(B), substituted "contribute data to" for "use and support".

Subsec. (d)(2). Pub. L. 115–334, §7211(3), substituted "2023" for "2018".

2014—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 113–79 substituted "to carry out this section—" for "such sums as are necessary to carry out this section." and added pars. (1) and (2).

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

#### Effective Date

Enactment of this section and repeal of Pub. L. 110–234 by Pub. L. 110–246 effective May 22, 2008, the date of enactment of Pub. L. 110–234, see section 4 of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as a note under section 8701 of this title.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
         NAME                                         STATE OF INCORPORATION
         ----                                         ----------------------
<S>                                                   <C>
American Casino Enterprises, Inc.                             Nevada

American Care Group, Inc.                                     Nevada

Diversy Enterprises, Inc.                                     Nevada

F.A.S.T., Inc.                                                Nevada

Fowler Card Club, Inc.                                        Nevada

G&L Acquisition Corp.                                         Nevada

Las Vegas Ad-Ventures                                         Nevada

Nevada Publishing, Inc.                                       Nevada

Millerton Games, Inc.                                         California

Motel Development, Inc.                                       Nevada

Reservation Connection, Inc.                                  Nevada

Royal Reservation, Inc.                                       Nevada

Trinidad Management, Inc.                                     Nevada

Mondel, Inc.                                                  Nevada

Sitka Restaurant Group, Inc. (1)                              Nevada

Vantage Bay Group, Inc.                                       Nevada
</TABLE>



(1)      Sitka Restaurant Group, Inc. is a subsidiary of Mondel, Inc., which is
         wholly owned by the Registrant.
#### 1515.606-70 Contracting methods.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development-Independent Agencies Appropriation Act contains a requirement that none of the funds provided in the Act may be used for payment through grants or contracts to recipients that do not share in the cost of conducting research resulting from proposals that are not specifically solicited by the Government. Accordingly, contracts for research which result from unsolicited proposals shall provide for the contractor to bear a portion of the cost of performance for work subject to the Act. The extent of the cost sharing shall reflect the mutuality of interest of the contractor and the Government. Therefore, where there is no measurable gain to the performing organization, cost sharing is not required.
Case: 1:12-cv-01555 Document #: 8 Filed: 03/05/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:14
#### New York Industrial Centre Corp., Appellant, v. National Biscuit Company, Respondent, and Kali Company et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

Order, entered on November 16, 1960, as grants defendant-respondent leave to serve an amended answer containing a counterclaim against the plaintiff for breach of contract, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. The counterclaim contained in the supplemental answer of October 20,1960 is legally insufficient. We pass upon no other question. Whether or not the individual defendants were properly added as parties may only be decided in the light of the allegations in the amended answer which is not before us. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Bastow, JJ.
TS120961 Attachment 2

- Sanitized
**CERTIFICATION REGARDING LOBBYING**

Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans, and Cooperative Agreements 

The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that: 

(1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of an agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. 

(2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, ''Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,'' in accordance with its instructions. 

(3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. 

Statement for Loan Guarantees and Loan Insurance 

The undersigned states, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that: 

If any funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this commitment providing for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, ''Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,'' in accordance with its instructions. Submission of this statement is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required statement shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. 

* APPLICANT’S ORGANIZATION

* PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE

 Prefix: 			* First Name:  				Middle Name: 

* Last Name: 							  Suffix: 

* Title: 

* SIGNATURE: 							* DATE:
### §1403. Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904

(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, §303, 66 Stat. 236.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

For definition of Canal Zone, referred to in text, see section 3602(b) of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse.

The effective date of this chapter, referred to in text, is the 180th day immediately following June 27, 1952. See section 407 of act June 27, 1952, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1101 of this title.

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

#### Change of Name

Panama Railroad Company redesignated Panama Canal Company by act Sept. 26, 1950, ch. 1049, §2(a)(2), 64 Stat. 1038. References to Panama Canal Company in laws of the United States are deemed to refer to Panama Canal Commission pursuant to section 3602(b)(5) of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse.
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.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 11325]

Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in this matter, and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, I conclude that there is a sufficient factual basis to find that the relevant circumstances described in section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (hereinafter “INA”) (8 U.S.C. 1189), exist with respect to Ansarallah, also known as Ansar Allah; also known as Ansarullah; also known as Partisans of God; and also known as Supporters of God. Therefore, I hereby designate the aforementioned organization and its aliases as a foreign terrorist organization pursuant to section 219 of the INA.

                    This determination shall be published in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

Dated: January 12, 2021.

Michael R. Pompeo,

Secretary of State.

[FR Doc. 2021-01001 Filed 1-15-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-AD-P