alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1499.7 Transportation of donated commodities. ( a ) Shipments of donated commodities are subject to the requirements of 46 U.S.C. 55305, regarding carriage on U.S.-flag vessels.
( b ) Transportation to the designated discharge port or point of entry of donated commodities, and other goods such as bags that may be provided by CCC under the FFPr Program, will be arranged for under a specific agreement in the manner determined by CCC. Such transportation will be arranged for by: ( 1 ) CCC in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) in 48 CFR chapter 1, the Agriculture Acquisition Regulation (AGAR) in 48 CFR chapter 4, and directives issued by the Director, Office of Contracting and Procurement, USDA; or
( 2 ) The recipient, with payment by CCC, in the manner specified in the agreement.
( c ) A recipient that is responsible for transportation under paragraph (b)(2) of this section must declare in the transportation contract the point at which the ocean carrier will take custody of donated commodities to be transported.
( d ) A recipient may only use the services of a transportation company that is legally operating in the country in which it will be transporting the donated commodities and that would not have a conflict of interest in transporting such donated commodities.
( e ) A recipient that arranges for transportation in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section may only use the services of a freight forwarder that is licensed by the Federal Maritime Commission and that would not have a conflict of interest in carrying out the freight forwarder duties. To assist CCC in determining whether there is a potential conflict of interest, the recipient must submit to CCC a certification indicating that the freight forwarder: ( 1 ) Is not engaged in, and will not engage in, supplying commodities or furnishing ocean transportation or ocean transportation-related services for commodities provided under any FFPr Program agreement to which the recipient is a party; and
( 2 ) Is not affiliated with the recipient and has not made arrangements to give or receive any payment, kickback, or illegal benefit in connection with its selection as an agent of the recipient.
( f ) A recipient will be responsible for arranging and paying for any transportation of the donated commodities after their arrival at the designated discharge port or point of entry for as long as the recipient has title to such donated commodities, except as may otherwise be provided in the agreement.
[81 FR 62605, Sept. 12, 2016, as amended at 87 FR 53366, Aug. 31, 2022]
#### § 1710.52 Loan guarantees.

RUS provides financing through 100 percent loan guarantees made under sections 306 and 306A of the RE Act. RUS also provides 90 percent loan guarantees under section 311 of the RE Act to enable borrowers to secure financing from certain private lenders. The loan guarantees are made for a term of up to 35 years, and the interest rate is established at a rate agreed to by the borrower and the lender, with RUS concurrence. The guarantee applies to the repayment of both principal and interest.

[58 FR 66264, Dec. 20, 1993]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Dell’Orfano, Appellant.

[775 NYS2d 577]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, (1) a decision and order of this Court dated October 12, 1993 *(People v Dell’Orfano,*197 AD2d 587 [1993]), modifying a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, rendered March 7, 1989, and affirming an order of the same court dated June 4, 1991, and (2) a decision and order of this Court dated July 10, 1995 *(People v Dell’Orfano, 217*AD2d 588 [1995]), affirming an amended sentence of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, imposed November 23, 1993.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]). Ritter, J.P., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.
§ 1718.51 Policy. ( a ) Adequate loan security must be provided for loans made or guaranteed by RUS. The loans are required to be secured by a first mortgage lien on most of the borrower's assets substantially in the form set forth in appendix A of this subpart. At the discretion of RUS, this model form of mortgage may be adapted to satisfy different legal requirements among the states and individual differences in lending circumstances, provided that such adaptations are consistent with the policies set forth in this subpart.
( b ) Some borrowers, such as certain public power districts, may not be able to provide security in the form of a first mortgage lien on their assets. In these cases RUS will consider accepting other forms of security, such as resolutions and pledges of revenues.
( c ) RUS may require supplemental and amending mortgages to protect its security, or in connection with additional loans.
( d ) RUS may also require such other security instruments (such as loan contracts, security agreements, financing statements, guarantees, and pledges) as it deems appropriate.
( e ) All distribution borrowers that receive a loan or loan guarantee from RUS on or after August 17, 1995 will be required to enter into a mortgage with RUS that meets the requirements of this subpart. The concurrence of any other lenders secured under the borrower's existing mortgage may be required before the borrower can enter into a new mortgage.
NO. PD-0348-13 

### FILED IN COURT OFAPPEALS 12th Court ofAppeals Distort

TYLER T 

### IN THE COURTOF CRIMINAL APPEjAKSVTHY S. LU OF TEXAS

LACHANCE CRUTCHFIELD, Appellant

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS HENDERSON COUNTY Per curiam. Keasler and HERVEY, JJ., dissent. ORDER The petition for discretionary review violates Rules ofAppellate Procedure 

### 68.4(i) & 9.4(i)(2)(D) because it does not contain a copy ofthe opinion ofthe court of appeals and the petition exceeds the proper length. The petition is struck. See Rule ofAppellate Procedure 68.6. The petitioner may redraw the petition. The redrawn petition and copies must 

### be filed in the Court ofCriminal Appeals within thirty days after the date ofthis order. Filed: July 24, 2013 Do not publish
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report of Ceridian Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas C. Neve,Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

|        | /s/ DOUGLAS C. NEVE                                     |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Douglas C. Neve                                         |
|   | *Executive  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer* |
|   | February 28,  2007                                 |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, orotherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form with the electronicversion of this written statement required by Section 906, has beenprovided to Ceridian Corporation and will be retained by Ceridian Corporationand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

----
#### In the Matter of Boris J. Friedkiss, an Attorney, Respondent. Brooklyn Bar Association, Petitioner.

Motion by respondent to modify order of this court, dated February 14, 1967, denied. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
#### § 1770.2 Designation of a supervisory official.

Each borrower shall designate one or more officials to supervise the preservation of its records.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsUse of microwave satellite data to study variations in rainfall over the Indian OceanThe University of Wisconsin Space Science and Engineering Center mapped rainfall over the Indian Ocean using a newly developed Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) rain-retrieval algorithm. The short-range objective was to characterize the distribution and variability of Indian Ocean rainfall on seasonal and annual scales. In the long-range, the objective is to clarify differences between land and marine regimes of monsoon rain. Researchers developed a semi-empirical algorithm for retrieving Indian Ocean rainfall. Tools for this development have come from radiative transfer and cloud liquid water models. Where possible, ground truth information from available radars was used in development and testing. SMMR rainfalls were also compared with Indian Ocean gauge rainfalls. Final Indian Ocean maps were produced for months, seasons, and years and interpreted in terms of historical analysis over the sub-continent.Document ID19900012185Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsHinton, Barry B.*(Wisconsin Univ. Madison, WI, United States)*Martin, David W.*(Wisconsin Univ. Madison, WI, United States)*Auvine, Brian*(Wisconsin Univ. Madison, WI, United States)*Olson, William S.*(Wisconsin Univ. Madison, WI, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMarch 1, 1990Subject CategoryMeteorology And ClimatologyReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-186408NAS 1.26:186408Accession Number90N21501Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAGW-920Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900012185.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

February 8, 2013

s0205

Order 

February 8, 2013

145967

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145967

COA: 305466

Saginaw CC: 10-034594-FC

FRANK ARTHUR CROWELL,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 14, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. Defendant 

argues that the warrantless search of the contents of his cell phone based solely on the 

third-party consent of the complainant violated his Fourth Amendment right against 

unreasonable searches. See United States v Matlock, 415 US 164; 94 S Ct 988; 39 L Ed 

2d 242 (1974). However, even if this evidence were to be suppressed, considering the 

weight and strength of the untainted evidence presented at trial, the defendant cannot 

demonstrate a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been 

different. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750 (1999).
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 26, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50191 Summary Calendar

CHARLES RAYMOND LEE, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JIM WILSON, Sheriff Williamson County; GEORGE DECKARD, Jailor Williamson County Jail, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CV-773

-------------------- Before KING, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Charles Raymond Lee, Jr., Texas prisoner # 904078, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against Deckard and Sheriff Jim Wilson, in their individual and official capacities. After the district court dismissed Lee’s case on summary judgment, Lee timely filed a notice of appeal. Lee appeals the dismissal of his claims that Deckard violated his constitutional rights by using excessive force and denying him medical treatment. This court reviews de novo aNo. 06-50191 -2- district court’s order granting a party’s summary-judgment motion. Whittaker v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc. , 206 F.3d 532, 534 (5th Cir. 2000); see also FED . R. C IV . P. 56(c); Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Lee’s excessive force claim was based on his allegation that he suffered a “busted lip” that bled when Deckard closed a portal door through which food is passed. Lee further described his lip injury as the kind that might be incurred in a basketball game, and he alleged that he suffered headaches as a result of his injury. Crediting Lee’s allegations as true under the summary judgment standard, we affirm the dismissal of his excessive force claim because Lee’s injury was de minimis in the context given that Deckard’s closing of the portal door was a reasonable attempt to maintain order in response to Lee’s complaints. See Hudson v. McMillian , 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992); Glenn v. City of Tyler , 242 F.3d 307, 314 (5th Cir. 2001); see also Hare v. City of Corinth , 74 F.3d 633, 639 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (pretrial detainee case). Lee also appeals his claim that he was denied medical care for his injured lip. Given the circumstances, the district court correctly entered summary judgment for the defendants because Lee’s injury was de minimis and their conduct was not “‘repugnant to the conscience of mankind.’” Stewart v. Murphy , 174 F.3d 530, 534 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting McCormick v. Stalder , 105 F.3d 1059, 1061 (5th Cir. 1997)); see also Hare , 74 F.3d at 639, 648.No. 06-50191 -3- Lee has moved for appointment of counsel, arguing that appointment of counsel is needed in order to obtain records, interview witnesses, and investigate Lee’s claims. Lee has not shown exceptional circumstances, and his request for appointment of counsel is denied. Cupit v. Jones , 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
§ 1724.21 Architectural services contracts. The provisions of this section apply only to RUS financed electric system facilities. ( a ) RUS Form 220, Architectural Services Contract, may be used by electric borrowers when obtaining architectural services.
( b ) The borrower shall ensure that the architect furnishes or obtains all architectural services related to the design and construction management of the facilities.
( c ) Reasonable modifications or additions to the terms and conditions in the RUS contract form may be made to define the exact services needed for a specific undertaking. Such modifications or additions shall not relieve the architect or the borrower of the basic responsibilities required by the RUS contract form, and shall not alter any terms and conditions required by law. All substantive changes must be approved by RUS prior to execution of the contract.
( d ) Architectural services contracts are not subject to RUS approval and need not be submitted to RUS unless specifically requested by RUS on a case by case basis.
( e ) *Closeout.* Upon completion of all services and obligations required under each architectural services contract, including, but not limited to, submission of final documents, the borrower must closeout that contract. The borrower shall obtain from the architect a final statement of cost, which must be supported by detailed information as appropriate. For example, out-of-pocket expense and per diem types of compensation should be listed separately with labor, transportation, etc., itemized for each service involving these types of compensation. RUS Form 284, Final Statement of Cost for Architectural Service, may be used. All computations of the compensation must be made in accordance with the terms of the architectural services contract. Closeout documents need not be submitted to RUS unless specifically requested by RUS on a case by case basis.
[63 FR 35314, June 29, 1998, as amended at 84 FR 32617, July 9, 2019]
Exhibit 13.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF SECTION 1350,
CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)  Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18,
United States Code), the undersigned officer of Waterford Wedgwood plc and
Waterford Wedgwood U.K. plc (together, the Company), hereby certifies, to
such officers knowledge, that:  The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year
ended March 31, 2004 (the Report) of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Dated: September 30, 2004   Signature:
  /s/ P. REDMOND O'DONOGHUEName:
  P. Redmond ODonoghueTitle:
  Chief Executive Officer   The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States
Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report.
§ 1737.91 Approval. ( a ) A loan is approved when the Administrator, or whoever is delegated authority, signs the administrative findings and the letter to the borrower announcing the loan.
( b ) If the loan is not approved, RUS shall notify the borrower, in writing, of the reasons.
No. 07-20-00366-CR

Ex parte Joseph Charles Campa Original Proceeding December 28, 2020 § § § § Opinion Per Curiam

J U D G M E N T Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated December 28, 2020, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that this writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
o O o
#### § 1744.206 Effect of subsequent failure to maintain ratios.

If an expenditure constitutes a qualified investment under the terms of this subpart, it does not cease to be a qualified investment merely because subsequently the borrower fails to maintain the maximum investment ratio or the minimum total assets ratio.
**Exhibit 13.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned, Randy Buchamer, Chief Financial Officer of Bradner Ventures Ltd., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
| (1) | the annual report on Form 20-F of Bradner Ventures Ltd. for the year ended November 30, 2005 (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 Bradner Ventures Ltd. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Dated:  May 31, 2006

/s/ Randy Buchamer

Randy Buchamer 

Chief Financial Officer 

(Principal Financial Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Bradner Ventures Ltd. and will be retained by Bradner Ventures Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Resource: Medicaid in Schools      

# Resource: Medicaid in Schools

This brief (PDF, 9 pages) explains the role of Medicaid in schools. It outlines how Medicaid is used to fund various school-based health care and support services and discusses limitations on Medicaid payment for school-based services. **Learn more**(PDF, 9 pages).