alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1160.208 Powers of the Board. The Board shall have the following powers: ( a ) To receive and evaluate, or on its own initiative develop, and budget for plans or projects to educate consumers and promote the use of fluid milk products and to make recommendations to the Secretary regarding such proposals;
( b ) To administer the provisions of this subpart in accordance with its terms and provisions;
( c ) To make rules and regulations to effectuate the terms and provisions of this subpart;
( d ) To receive, investigate, and report to the Secretary complaints of violations of the provisions of this subpart;
( e ) To employ such persons as the Board deems necessary and determine the duties and compensation of such persons;
( f ) To contract with eligible organizations or other persons to conduct activities authorized pursuant to this subpart;
( g ) To select committees and subcommittees, to adopt bylaws, and to adopt such rules for the conduct of its business as it may deem advisable; the Board may establish working committees of persons other than Board members;
( h ) To recommend to the Secretary amendments to this subpart; and
( i ) With the approval of the Secretary, to invest, pending disbursement pursuant to a plan or project, funds collected through assessments authorized under § 1160.211 in, and only in, obligations of the United States or any agency thereof, in general obligations of any State or any political subdivision thereof, in any interest-bearing account or certificate of deposit of a bank that is a member of the Federal Reserve System, or in obligations fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by the United States.
[58 FR 62503, Nov. 29, 1993, as amended at 63 FR 46639, Sept. 2, 1998]
CORRECTED: June 9, 2009

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-3132

MARIE C. MAPLES,

Petitioner,

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent.

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in

AT844E080694-I-1.

ON MOTION

Before NEWMAN Circuit Judge.

ORDER

Marie C. Maples moves to supplement the record to include various documents

not before the Merit Systems Protection Board. Maples also moves for an extension of

time, until June 29, 2009, to pay the court's docketing fee.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion to supplement the record is deferred for consideration by the

merits panel that is assigned to hear the case.

A copy of this order and the motions papers regarding the motion to

supplement the record shall be transmitted to the merits panel assigned to hear this

case.
(3)	The motion for an extension of time to pay the docketing fee is granted.

No further extensions should be anticipated.

JUN - 9 2009

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbalv

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

Date

cc:	Marie C. Maples

David M. Hibey, Esq.

s19

JUN u9 2009

JAN HOR8ALY

CLERK

2009-3132	 2
§ 1160.210 Expenses. ( a ) The Board is authorized to incur such expenses (including provision for a reasonable reserve) as the Secretary finds are reasonable and likely to be incurred by the Board for its administration, and to enable it to exercise its powers and perform its duties in accordance with the provisions of this subpart; except that, after the Board's first year, it shall not spend on its administration more than 5 percent of the assessments collected during any fiscal period subsequent to the initial fiscal period. Such administrative expenses shall be paid from assessments collected pursuant to § 1160.211.
( b ) The Board shall reimburse the Secretary for administrative costs incurred by the Department from assessments collected pursuant to § 1160.211.
( c ) Within 30 days after funds are remitted from Regions 14 and 15, the Board shall provide a grant of 80% of such funds to the entity authorized by the laws of the State of California to conduct an advertising program for fluid milk products in that State for the purpose of implementing a coordinated advertising program in the markets within those regions. Such grant shall be provided with the approval of the Secretary on the following conditions: ( 1 ) The granted funds shall be utilized to implement a fluid milk promotion campaign within the markets within those regions. Verification of the implementation of this program shall be provided to the Board.
( 2 ) The Board shall ensure that the recipients of these funds implement a research and evaluation program to determine the effect of such program on consumption of fluid milk within the region.
( 3 ) The recipient of these funds must provide to the Board data from the research and evaluation programs so that the Board can determine the effect of the program on consumption of fluid milk.
970.0470-1 General. ( a ) The contractor is required to comply with the requirements of applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations, unless relief has been granted by the appropriate authority. For informational purposes, the contracting officer may append the contract with a list of applicable laws or regulations (see 970.5204-2, Laws, Regulations, and DOE Directives, paragraph (a)).
( b ) The Department of Energy Directives System is a system of instructions, including orders, notices, manuals, guides, and standards, for Departmental elements. In certain circumstances, requirements contained in these directives may apply to a contractor through operation of a contract clause. Program and requirements personnel are responsible for identifying requirements in the Directives Program which are applicable to a contract, and for developing a list of applicable requirements and providing it to the contracting officer for inclusion in the contract.
( c ) Where directives requirements are established using either the Standards/Requirements Identification Process or the Work Smart Standards Process, the applicable process should also be used to establish the environment, safety, and health portion of the list identified in paragraph (b) of this section.
( d ) Environmental, safety, and health (ES&H) requirements appropriate for work conducted under a management and operating contract may be determined by a DOE approved process to evaluate the work and the associated hazards, and identify an appropriately tailored set of standards, practices, and controls, such as a tailoring process included in a DOE approved Safety Management System implemented under 970.5223-1, Integration of Environment, Safety, and Health into Work Planning and Execution. When such a process is used, the contracting officer shall ensure that the set of tailored requirements, as approved by DOE pursuant to the process, is incorporated into the list identified in paragraph (b) of this section. These requirements shall supersede, in whole or in part, the contractual environmental, safety, and health requirements previously made applicable to the contract by List B. If the tailored set of requirements identifies an alternative requirement which varies from an ES&H requirement of an otherwise applicable law or regulation, the contractor must request an exemption or other appropriate regulatory relief that may be specified in the governing regulation.
[65 FR 81009, Dec. 22, 2000, as amended at 74 FR 23127, May 18, 2009; 74 FR 36371, July 22, 2009]
#### 731.773 Independent research and development costs.

The cost principle at FAR 31.205-18 applies to independent research and development costs.

[89 FR 4206, Jan. 23, 2024]
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 9 A0 37 8 . DAVI D B. CHATHAM v . THE STATE.

Dav i d B. Ch at h am , w h o was ch arg ed wi t h DUI, m o v ed t o s u p p res s t h e res u l t s

o f a St at e-ad m i n i s t ered b reat h t es t o b t ai n ed aft er h i s arres t

. 1 Ch at ham arg u ed t h at t h e

res u l ts were i n ad m i s s i b l e b ecau s e t h e St at e v i o l at ed h i s Geo rg i a co n s t i t u t i o n al ri g ht

ag ai n s t s el f-i ncri m i n at i o n b y fai l i n g t o g i v e hi m a Mi r a n d a 2 warn i ng b efo re

ad m i n is t eri n g t h e t es t. Th e t ri al co u rt d en i ed t h e m o t io n , ru l i n g th at Ch at h am h ad n o

co n st i t u t io n al ri gh t t o be g iv en a Mi r a n d a warn i n g b efo re d eci d in g wh et h er t o s u bm i t

t o t h e breat h t es t

. Fo l l o wi n g a b en ch t ri al

, Ch at h am w as co n v i ct ed o f DUI, an d h e

n o w ap p eal s t o t h is Co u rt

. Th e Su p rem e Co u rt “ h as ex cl u s i v e j u ri s d i ct i o n o v e r al l cas es i nv o l v i n g

co n st ru ct i o n of t h e Co n s t i tu t i o n o f t h e St at e o f Geo rg ia an d o f t he Un i ted St at es an d

al l cas es i n wh i ch t h e co n s ti t u t i o n al i t y o f a l aw, o rd i n an ce, o r co n s t i t u t i o nal p ro v i s i o n

h as b een cal l ed i n t o q u es t i o n .” At l an t a In d ep en d en t S ch o o l S ys t em v. La n e , 2 6 6 Ga.

6 5 7

, 6 57 (1 ) (4 6 9 SE2 d 2 2) (1 9 9 6 ) (ci t in g Ga. Co n s t

. o f 19 8 3

, Art

. VI, Sec. VI, Par.

II (1 )). Th i s ap peal ap p ears to fal l wi t h i n t h e Su p rem e Co urt ’ s ex cl u s i v e j u ri s d i ct i o n

o v er cas es i n v o l v in g t h e co n s t ru ct i on o f t h e s t a t e an d fed eral co n st it u t i o n

. Fu rt h er,

t h e Su p rem e Co u rt h a s t h e u l t i m at e res p o ns i b il i ty fo r d et erm i n i n g ap p el l at e j u r i s d i c t i o n

. See S

a xt o n v. Co a s t a l Di a l

ys i s & Med

. Cl i n i c , 2 67 G a. 1 7 7

, 1 7 8 (4 7 6

SE2 d 5 87 ) (1 9 9 6 ). Acco rd i n g l y , t h i s ap p eal i s h ereb y T RANSFERRED t o t h e

1 Ch at h am al s o m o v ed t o s u p p res s o t h er ev id e n c e t h a t i s no t at i s s u e i n t h i s

ap p eal

.

2 Mi r a n d a v. Ar iz o n a , 3 8 4 U. S. 4 3 6 (8 6 SCt . 1 6 0 2 , 1 6 LE2 d 6 9 4 ) (1 9 6 6 ). April 15, 2019Su p rem e Co u rt fo r d i s p o s i t i o n

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 04/15/2019
§ 1207.352 Confidential treatment. All information obtained from books, records, or reports required pursuant to this part shall be kept confidential by all employees of the Department of Agriculture and of the Board, and by all contractors and agents retained by the Board, and only such information so furnished or acquired as the Secretary deems relevant shall be disclosed by them, and then only in a suit or administrative hearing brought at the direction, or upon the request, of the Secretary, or to which the Secretary or any officer of the United States is a party, and involving this Plan. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prohibit: ( a ) The issuance of general statements based upon the reports of a number of handlers or importers subject to this Plan, which statements do not identify the information furnished by any person; or
( b ) The publication by direction of the Secretary of the name of any person violating this Plan, together with a statement of the particular provisions of this Plan violated by such person.
[56 FR 40230, Aug. 14, 1991]
Exhibit 32.1

VIASYS HEALTHCARE INC.  Section 1350 Certifications

I, Randy H. Thurman, Chief Executive Officer, and Martin P. Galvan, Chief Financial Officer (principal financial and accounting officer), of VIASYS
Healthcare Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify that, to my knowledge:

(1)   The
report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Date:
March 15, 2004

|                                    |  |                                    
|----------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------
|CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER:            |  | CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER:           
|                                    |  |                                    
|                                    |  |                                    
|/s/RANDY H. THURMANRandy H. Thurman |  | /s/MARTIN P. GALVANMartin P. Galvan

---

QuickLinks
#### SMITH, Appellant, v. VILLAGE OF FT. PLAIN, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 13, 1906.)

Action, by Isaac E. Smith against the village of Fort Plain.

No opinion. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.
I, Jeffrey T. May, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form N-Q of  Nicholas Fund, Inc.;

 

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 schedules of investments included in this report fairly present in all material respects the investments of the registrant as of the end of the fiscal quarter for which the report is filed;

 

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 30a-3(c) under the Investment Company Act of 1940) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 30a-3(d) under the Investment Company Act of 1940) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report, based on such evaluation; and

 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

 

----
#### The Guarantee Company of North America, appellee, v. Wm. V. Hoier, appellant.

Gen. No. 34,559.

Opinion filed May 13, 1931.

Louis W. Beineeker, Jr., for appellant; Frederick C¡ Jonas, of counsel.

Eugene P. Kealy, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Hebei

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### Tehama Janice Writer, appellee, v. Bernard W. Snow, bailiff of the municipal court of Chicago and S. Rugendorf, defendants. S. Rugendorf, appellant.

Gen. No. .33,548.

Opinion filed December 31, 1929.

Malkin & Malkin, for appellant. Joseph O. McKiernan and Cecil Smith, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Scanlan

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### § 1030.78 Charges on overdue accounts.

See § 1000.78.
Exhibit 23.5

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

We hereby consent to the reference to DeGolyer and MacNaughton, to the
incorporation of the information contained in our Appraisal Report as of December 31, 2006 on Certain Properties owned by ATP Oil & Gas Corporation (our Report), and to references to our Report in the Annual Report on Form
10-K of ATP Oil & Gas Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2006 In addition, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of such reference to DeGolyer and MacNaughton and to our Report in ATP Oil & Gas
Corporations previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-105699 and 333-121662) and on Form S-8 (No. 333-60762).



|                           
|---------------------------
|Very truly yours,          
|                           
|/s/ DeGolyer and McNaughton
|DeGolyer and MacNaughton   

March 1, 2007
#### Donald Eugene BROWN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 74-2300.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

April 9, 1975.

Donald Eugene Brown, in pro. per.

Stan Pitkin, U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for appellee.

Before ELY, HUFSTEDLER and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

On March 30, 1964, Brown pleaded guilty to the interstate transportation of counterfeit securities, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314, and a judgment of conviction followed. Brown recently filed a petition for vacation of the 1964 conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq. The District Court denied the petition, whereupon Brown appealed. We affirm.

Brown makes two interrelated contentions: (1) that the District Court, in 1964, did not comply with Rule 11, Fed. R.Crim.P., in assuring that Brown’s plea of guilty was knowingly and voluntarily made, and (2) that he, Brown, did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to counsel.

Both of Brown’s contentions are directly and clearly undermined by the *142transcript of the 1964 proceedings in the District Court. Prior to Brown’s entry of his guilty plea, the district judge reminded Brown of his right to maintain his innocence, thereby casting upon the Government the burden of proving Brown’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Brown was informed of his right to a jury trial and witness confrontation, and he was advised of the maximum possible sentence for his alleged crime. Brown assured the court that he had been offered no “deals” and that his plea was not coerced. While emphasizing Brown’s options, the court repeatedly told Brown that he could, if he so desired, obtain court-appointed counsel at no expense to himself. Brown declined to request the assistance of counsel. When asked if he understood the indictment which had been read to him by the court, Brown responded affirmatively. The court thereupon entered the plea of guilty and imposed the challenged judgment.

At the time.appellant’s plea was made and accepted, the controlling authority in our court was Long v. United States, 290 F.2d 606 (9th Cir. 1961). *Long,*which established a less stringent stand-, ard for the application of the requirements of Rule 11 was subsequently overruled by our court in Heiden v. United States, 353 F.2d 53 (9th Cir. 1965) (en banc), and McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969). However, it was held in Castro v. United States, 396 F.2d 345 (9th Cir. 1968), and Halliday v. United States, 394 U.S. 831, 89 S.Ct. 1498, 23 L.Ed.2d 16 (1969), that the more rigid standards announced in *Heiden*and *McCarthy*were not to be applied retroactively. Accordingly, the rule of *Long*(as interpreted in Munich v. United States, 337 F.2d 356 (9th Cir. 1964)) controls the disposition of Brown’s appeal. It should also be noted, incidentally, that the Rule 11 provisions applicable here are those existing before the Rule’s amendment in 1966.

Affirmed.
## NO. 12

- 10

- 00 15 8

- C V

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

'

IN RE: OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, ' ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

RELATOR

'

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

On May 26, 2010, the Office of the Attorney General of Texas (the “OAG”) filed

a petition for writ of mandamus in this court complaining of the trial court’s Order for

Parentage Testing signed on April 7, 2010. On June 7, 2010, this court received OAG’s

motion to dismiss the petition as mo ot. As grounds, the OAG furnished a copy of an

order signed by the trial court on June 2, 2010, which vacates the April 7, 2010 Order for

Parentage Testing.

After having reviewed the OAG’s motion and the trial court’s June 2, 2010 order,

we conclude that this mandamus proceeding is now moot. Accordingly, the OAG’s

motion is granted, and this original proceeding is dismissed

.

Opinion delivered June 9 , 2010.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
#### § 1147.210 Milk for other programs.

Eligible dairy products sold or donated under other commodity or food assistance programs administered by the United States Department of Agriculture, except as pursuant to 7 CFR 1146, is not eligible for reimbursement under the Dairy Donation Program in this part.
1 NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CORREY ALCANTRA

, de facto Tribal

Chairman of the Coyote Valley Band of

Pomo Indians,

P laintiff

- Appell ee

,

v.

COYOTE VALLEY BAND OF POMO

INDIANS; et al.

,

Defendant s

- Appell ant s

. No. 1 8

- 1 6482

D.C. No. 3:17

- cv

- 07377

- VC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Vince Chhabria , District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 22 , 20 20 * *

San Francisco , California

Before: W. FLETCHER and R. NELSON , Circuit Judge s , and MOLLOY, * * *

District Judge.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for

the District of Montana, sitting by design ation. 

# FILED

FEB 25 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Defendants appeal the denial of sanctions against Plaintiff Correy Alcantra’s

counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927

. We have

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291

, and we affirm.

T he decision to impose sanctions , whether under Rule 11 or § 1927, is a

matter of discretion for the district court. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmax Corp. , 496

U.S. 384, 405 (1990) ; Salstro m v. Citicorp Credit Servs. , Inc. , 74 F.3d 183, 185

(9th Cir. 1996) . Here, the record shows Alc antra’s attorney withdrew the official

capacity claims against the Tribal Council members and attempted to withdraw the

ICRA and constructive trust claims even before Defendants filed their motion for

sanctions. On these facts, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining

to impose sanctions.

AFFIRMED

.