alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 15c.7 Complaints. ( a ) *Filing of complaints.* Any person who believes he/she or any specific class of individuals has been subject to discrimination by a recipient or believes that the recipient is otherwise in noncompliance with the provisions of the Age Act or this regulation may file a complaint with OASCR. The USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form may be used to file a complaint.
( b ) *Time and place of filing.* All age discrimination complaints alleging discrimination or noncompliance must be filed within 180 days of the last discriminatory act, to be timely. All complaints under this part shall be filed with the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250.
( c ) *Notice of rights and responsibilities.* USDA shall provide notice to the complainant and the recipient of their: ( 1 ) Rights and obligations under complaint procedures including their right to have a representative at all stages of the complaint process;
( 2 ) Rights to contact the agency for information and assistance regarding the complaint resolution process; and
( 3 ) Obligation to participate actively in efforts toward speedy resolution of the complaint.
( d ) *Mediation of complaints.* All complaints that allege discrimination based on age shall be mediated in an attempt to resolve disputes at the earliest stage possible. The complainant and the recipient are required to participate in the mediation process. If the complainant and recipient reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of the complaint during the mediation period, they shall reduce the agreement to writing.
( e ) *Investigation of complaints.* If the parties are unable to reach a resolution, USDA shall investigate the complaint. During the investigation of the complaint, OASCR or an agency delegated complaint processing authority shall use informal fact finding methods, including joint or separate discussions with the complainant and recipient, to establish the facts and, if possible, settle the complaint on terms that are mutually agreeable to the parties. USDA may seek the assistance of any involved State agency. If informal resolution efforts are unsuccessful, OASCR shall complete the investigation.
( f ) *Final determination.* After a complete investigation, OASCR shall make a final determination as to the merits of the complaint. The complainant shall be notified of the final determination and provided notice of his or her right to file a civil action under the Age Act, 42 U.S.C. 6104(e), and 15c.10 of this part.
( g ) *Voluntary compliance.* If OASCR or an agency delegated complaint processing authority finds that age discrimination has occurred, USDA shall attempt to obtain voluntary compliance. The recipient shall take any remedial action which USDA may require to overcome the effects of discrimination. If USDA cannot obtain voluntary compliance, it shall undertake enforcement of the Age Act and this regulation.
#### § 1489.33 Noncompliance with an agreement or this part.

If a RAPP Participant fails to comply with any term in its program agreement or approval letter, or this part, the CCC may take one or more of the enforcement actions in 2 CFR part 200 and, if appropriate, initiate a claim against the RAPP Participant, following the procedures set forth in this part. The CCC may also initiate a claim against a RAPP Participant if program income or CCC-provided funds are lost due to an action or omission of the RAPP Participant.
#### Martin Howe, appellee, v. George W. Griffen, appellant.

Gen. No. 33,365.

Opinion filed May 31, 1929.

Davis & Napier, by W. C. Napier, for appellant. No appearance for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****INSCOM journal.
 
SuDocNumber:D101.85:
ItemNumber:0325-F(online)
CGPsystem Number: 000588087

 
 
1996-1998
1996-Nov-Dec
 
1997-Jan-Feb
 
1997-Mar-Apr
 
1997-May-Jun
 
1998-Oct-Dec
 
2002
Almanac
 
2003
Spring
 
Fall
 
2005
Almanac
 
Spring
 
Summer
 
Winter
 
2006
Winter
 
2008
Spring
 
Summer
 
Winter
 
2009
Spring
 
Summer
 
2010
Spring
 
2012
Winter
 
 
 **
118 So.2d 896

#### Nicholas P. TRIST v. Harold R. RAVAIN.

No. 43887.

March 21, 1960.

Edward A. Wallace, New Orleans, for appellant.

Edgar N. Quillin, Arabi, for plaintiffappellee.

HAMLIN, Justice.

Defendant, Harold R. Ravain, appealed suspensively to this Court from a judgment of the trial court condemning him to vacate the premises known as “Harold R. Ravain Shoe Store,” No. 7009 St. Claude Avenue, Arabi, Louisiana, and to deliver possession thereof to plaintiff, Nicholas P. Trist, within fifteen days.

Plaintiff brought rule proceedings under LSA-R.S. 13:4918 for the eviction of defendant from the premises, supra. He alleged that he was the owner thereof; that he rented the property to defendant under *489a month to month lease agreement; that he had given the defendant timely notice to vacate; and, that he was entitled to possession.

In answer, defendant averred that a verbal contract of lease existed between him and plaintiff, and argued that its three-year term (August, 1954-57) had not expired. He prayed for dismissal of plaintiff’s rule for eviction.

After trial of the rule for eviction, which resulted in the judgment, supra, the trial judge refused to grant defendant a suspensive appeal. This Court ordered him to grant defendant a suspensive appeal under the provisions of LSA-R.S. 13:4924. 233 La. 731, 98 So.2d 169.

On the date set for argument (February 24, 1960) counsel for appellant stated to this Court that the entire issue had become moot because of the expiration of the lease by its own terms. Counsel for appellee affirmed this statement.

Any opinion we might render with respect to the terms of the instant lease would he abstract and of no effect. Tullos v. Long, 231 La. 171, 90 So.2d 880.

> “It is the function of appellate courts to render judgments that can be made effective and not to give opinions on moot questions or abstract propositions from which no practical results can follow. So where it is impossible for the appellate court to undo what has already been done, the court will not determine the questions litigated in the court below, but will dismiss the appeal. * * * ” Pettingill v. Hills, Inc., 199 La. 557, 6 So.2d 660, 662. See, Hirt v. City of New Orleans, 225 La. 589, 73 So.2d 471; Haydel v. Frellsen, La.App., 79 So.2d 399; Blanchard v. City of Shreveport, La.App., 90 So. 2d 556.

For the reasons assigned, the appeal is dismissed at appellant’s cost.
## Other Youth Topics

## Breadcrumb

            -  Youth Topics 
            -  Opportunity Youth 
            -  Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth (P3) 
            -           Round 2 (FY 2015)      

# Round 2 (FY 2015)

In this section, learn about the site that was selected for the **second round** (FY 2015) of funding for Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth. The Round 2 project period is May 24, 2018, through September 30, 2019.

## Re-Connect Menu

-  Overview 
-  Evaluation 
-  Round 5 (FY 2021) 
-  Round 4 (FY 2018 and FY 2019) 
-  Round 3 (FY 2016) 
-  Round 2 (FY 2015)    -  Round 2 Pilot Site Abstracts 
-  Round 1 (FY 2014) 
-  Background
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Andrew Mathews, Appellant, v Harold J. Smith, as Superintendent of the Attica Correctional Facility, Respondent.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed on the memorandum decision at Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Conable, J. (Appeal from judgment of Wyoming Supreme Court — habeas corpus.) Present — Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Hancock, Jr., Callahan and Doerr, JJ.
#### § 1777.15 Public infrastructure—Rates and terms.

Public infrastructure loans will bear interest at not more than the maximum rate of 5 percent per annum. The rates and terms will be in accordance with 7 CFR 1780 Water and Waste Loans and Grants.
## AS. TRUST 

## & HOLDINGS, INC. A Saipan corporation 44- 129 Mikola Drive

Statement to whom it may concern TEGA, Technische Gase und Gasetechnik GmbH, confirms to blend under the order and the license of A S. TRUST & HOLDINGS, INC. the hydrocarbon refrigerants HCR188C and HCR188C1, ASH RAE listed under R 441A and R 443A Blends are composed with quality checked high purity components. Finished blends are analysed for each cylinder/drum with available certificate of analysis. TEGA is ISO 9001:2008 certified. TEGA, a subsidiary of The Linde Group, is one of the main distributors for**flammaql~** 

## and non-flammable refrigerants in Europe. .'

f.



# . It / V( < 

## Dr. Jurgen Zoller

TEGA- Technische Gase und Gasetechnik, GmbH 

### werner-von-Siemens-Str
. 18-97076 Wurzburg TEGA- Technische Gase und Gasetechnik GmbH Werner-v on-S i eme ns-Strasse 18 97076 WUrzburg T e lefon +49 931 2093-0 T e l efa x +49 931 209 3-1 0 1 Em ai l : i nf o@ tega
.d e www.te ga. de Gesch af tsfOhrer: D r. JO rg en Zo l ler Si t z der G es

el lscha ft : WO rzb u rg Re gi s tergericht: Wlirzbur g, H RB 2 1 U

S t - ldNr.: DE 811145437 Steuer- Nr. 143 / 1 03 / 9 1108 D

e u tsc he Ban k W Ur zbur g BL Z 790 700 1 6 K o nt o : 0202804 IBAN: D E 707907 001600202804 00 BI C: DEUTDEMM790
#### LEWIS v. TERRITORY OF HAWAII.

No. 13912.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Feb. 20, 1954.

Hyman M. Greenstein, David H. Marshall, Honolulu, Hawaii, for appellant.

Robert E. St. Sure, Public Prosecutor, John R. Desha, Takashi Kitaoka, Asst. Public Prosecutor, City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii, for appellee.

Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, and STEPHENS and POPE, Circuit Judges.

DENMAN, Chief Judge.

Lewis appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii affirming a judgment of the Hawaiian .district court convicting him of a violation of the Hawaiian law against procuring and pimping. Lewis contended before the Hawaiian Supreme Court and contends here that he was denied due process because after he dis*553closed to the trial court he was without funds to employ counsel, counsel for him was appointed by that court on April 7, 1952, and the case ordered for trial and the trial began in less than twenty-four hours on April 8, 1952.

The record shows no motion of the appointed counsel for a continuance, but does show that on April 8, 1952, “both parties being ready to proceed,” the im-panelment of the jury went forward. Apparently, nothing in the course of the trial embarrassed Lewis or his counsel because of the short time for preparation of the case, for no motion for a new trial was made to the trial court on that or any ground. The transcript of the trial proceedings is not before us.

In these circumstances we are unable to hold that due process, which must affirmatively appear, was denied Lewis. He well could have told his counsel: “Go ahead, I have no witnesses. Do the best you can on cross-examination of the prosecution’s witnesses.”

An affidavit of Lewis’ attorney appears in the transcript but not as filed in the cause. It purports to state that the attorney had never before tried a case, that when appointed on April 7, 1952, he requested in chambers further time, but failed to move for it when the trial began on the next day. Assuming that such a document, not shown to be filed in the case, could have been considered by the Hawaiian Supreme Court, Lewis’ brief in that court abandoned any contention based thereon in the following language: “At the outset, defendant does abandon in the entirety all argument based upon the affidavit of Nane Aluli, Esq., attorney of record in the court below for defendant, as to the conduct of said defense.”

 The supreme court’s opinion makes no mention of the abandoned contention. Not being raised in the court below, it cannot be raised here. As we stated in Warner v. Territory of Hawaii, 9 Cir., 206 F.2d 851 at page 852: “The federal question essential to appellate ju-risdietion must moreover be first raised below and timely presented for eonsider-ation by the Supreme Court of the Territory.”

The judgment is affirmed.
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with thequarterly report on Form 10-Q of Advanced Life Sciences Holdings, Inc.(the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2009 (the “Report”),I, John L. Flavin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 to the extent applicable; and

 

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

 
|        |   | Date: May 12, 2009               |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                  |
|   |   |                                  |
|   |   | /s/ John L. Flavin                    |
|   |   | John L. Flavin                        |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer               |
|   |   | Advanced Life Sciences  Holdings, Inc |

 

1

----
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

Inconnection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Advanced LifeSciences Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ending September 30,2010 (the “Report”), I, Michael T. Flavin, Chairman and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that tomy knowledge:

 

(1)           The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 to the extent applicable; and

 

(2)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | Date:  November 12, 2010               |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|   |                                        |
|   |                                        |
|   | /s/  Michael T. Flavin                      |
|   | Michael  T. Flavin                          |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer                    |
|   | Advanced  Life Sciences Holdings, Inc. |

 

1

----
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002










I, Edward Wong, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OCertxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Tech-Net Communications, Inc. for the annual period ended March 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Tech-Net Communications, Inc..
§ 1753.37 Plans and specifications (P&S). ( a ) *General.* ( 1 ) Prior to the preparation of P&S, the borrower shall review with the GFR the current and future requirements for central office equipment.
( 2 ) The P&S shall specify the delivery and completion time required for each exchange.
( 3 ) P&S for equipment to be provided under an Equipment Contract, RUS Contract Form 395 (RUS Contract Form 395) contract without installation shall require the supplier to provide specific installation information and a detailed bonding and grounding plan to be utilized by the engineer, borrower, and others responsible for the installation of the equipment.
( b ) *Preparation of P&S.* The P&S shall include RUS Contract Form 395, Notice and Instructions to Bidders, specifications for the required equipment for each exchange, provision for spare parts, and all other pertinent data needed by the bidder to complete its proposal.
( c ) RUS review of P&S is required for construction estimated to cost over $500,000 total or estimated to cost more than 25% of the total loan, whichever is less. ( 1 ) If RUS review is required, the borrower shall submit one copy of the P&S to the GFR for RUS review.
( 2 ) RUS will review the P&S and notify the borrower in writing of approval or disapproval.
[54 FR 39267, Sept. 25, 1989. Redesignated at 55 FR 39397, Sept. 27, 1990, as amended at 64 FR 16607, Apr. 6, 1999; 81 FR 71582, Oct. 18, 2016]
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 18, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-60270

Summary Calendar

 

ANTHONY SWIFT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LADDIE HUFFMAN, Sheriff; BILLY PERKINS, Jail Administrator; 

BOBBIE RANDLE, Jailor,

Defendants-Appellees.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:01-CV-375-B

 

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Anthony Swift, Mississippi prisoner # 75278, appeals the

judgment for the defendants following an evidentiary hearing on his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint challenging the conditions of his

confinement at the Clay County jail. Swift alleges in his lawsuit

that his Eighth Amendment rights were violated because he was

housed in a screening cell for two weeks without bedding or a
1See Palmer v. Johnson, 193 F.3d 346, 352 (5th Cir. 1999).

2

pillow while jail officials investigated alleged misconduct by

Swift. He claims that the denial of bedding material amounted to

a denial of basic human needs, and he claims to have suffered back

and hip injuries as a result. The district court rejected his

arguments. 

We find no error in the district court’s conclusion. The

record supports the district court’s determination that the

deprivation was not sufficiently serious and the Clay County

jailers were not sufficiently culpable to violate the Eighth

Amendment.1 Swift was housed in the screening cell only as long as

necessary to investigate the allegations made against him and to

secure the availability of alternative housing. The evidence also

indicates that his back injury did not manifest itself for many

months after his confinement in the screening cell.

AFFIRMED.
Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV
Editorial Note: For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov .*

§ 1435.503 In-kind payments. ( a ) CCC will, through such methods as CCC deems appropriate, make payments in the form of sugar held in CCC inventory.
( b ) To the maximum extent practicable, CCC will use its inventory in making an in-kind payment based on the following priority: ( 1 ) CCC-owned sugar held in storage by the processor;
( 2 ) CCC-owned sugar held in storage by any other processor in the same region as the producer;
( 3 ) CCC-owned sugar held in storage by any other processor that is not in the same region as the producer; and
( 4 ) CCC-owned sugar held in storage anywhere in the United States, if CCC determines that such sugar is eligible to be used for in-kind payments.
( c ) The value of CCC-owned inventory is dependent upon the storage location of the sugar and the type of sugar (raw or refined). CCC will announce the value of its inventory before bid solicitation. Accordingly, the quantity of sugar CCC will provide in terms of an in-kind payment to a processor will be determined by dividing: ( 1 ) The total of the processor's bid amount that CCC accepts, by
( 2 ) The value of CCC's inventory at the storage location at which title will transfer from CCC to the processor.
[67 FR 54928, Aug. 26, 2002. Redesignated at 74 FR 15367, Apr. 6, 2009]
Exhibit
32.1



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 Annual Report of Ethema Health Corporation, a Colorado corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K
for the period ended December 31, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Shawn Leon, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The
                                         Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 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.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|/s/
    Shawn Leon                                        | 
|--------------------------------------------------------- | 
|President and Chief Executive Officer 
April
    17, 2018 |
§ 15.110 Prehearing conferences. ( a ) In any case in which it appears that such procedure will expedite the proceeding, the hearing officer may, prior to the commencement of the hearing, request the parties to meet with him or to correspond with him regarding any of the following: ( 1 ) Simplification and clarification of the issues;
( 2 ) Necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings;
( 3 ) Stipulations, admissions of fact and of the contents and authenticity of documents;
( 4 ) Matters of which official notice will be taken;
( 5 ) Limitation of the number of experts or other witnesses;
( 6 ) Disposal of all motions; and
( 7 ) Such other matters as may expedite and aid in the disposition of the proceeding.
( b ) The hearing officer shall enter in the record a written summary of the results of the conference or correspondence with the parties.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

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 Annual Report of Datawatch Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2006 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, JohnJ. Hulburt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

(1)            The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)            The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.
|        |   /s/ John J. Hulburt |   |
|--------|---------------------------------|--------|
|   | John J. Hulburt                 |
|   | Chief Financial Officer         |
|   | December 29, 2006               |

 

1

----