alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
98-1997.

#### Wolfe v. Haskins.

In Habeas Corpus. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
§ 240.4 Cash in lieu of donated foods for nonresidential child and adult care institutions. ( a ) For each school year any State agency may, upon application to FNS prior to the beginning of the school year, elect to receive cash in lieu of donated foods for use in nonresidential child care or adult care institutions participating in the Child and Adult Care Food Program. FNS shall pay each State agency making such election, at a minimum, an amount calculated by multiplying the number of lunches and suppers served in the State's nonresidential child and adult care institutions which meet the meal pattern requirements prescribed in the regulations for the Child and Adult Care Food Program under part 226 of this chapter by the national average value of donated food prescribed in section 6(e)(1) of the Act. However, if a State agency has elected to receive a combination of donated foods and cash, the required amount shall be reduced based upon the number of such lunches and suppers served for which the State receives donated foods.
( b ) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section in any State in which FNS administers the Child Care Food Program in any nonresidential child care institution, FNS shall withhold from the funds payable to such State under this section an amount equal to the ratio of the number of lunches and suppers served in such institutions in which the program is administered by the FNS and for which cash payments are provided to the total number of lunches and suppers served in that program and for which cash in lieu of payments are received, in all nonresidential child care institutions in the State.
[47 FR 15982, Apr. 13, 1982, as amended at 58 FR 39120, July 22, 1993]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON
PAGES 24, 25 AND 26 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED MAY 31,
1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                         228,414
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,174,228
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (8,479)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,546
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,399,018
<PP&E>                                         799,784
<DEPRECIATION>                               (717,713)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,514,102
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,832,358
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,155
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,321,411)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,514,102
<SALES>                                        542,575
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               542,575
<CGS>                                          180,150
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  585,899
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,848
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,531
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (50,703)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       619
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (51,322)
<DISCONTINUED>                               (164,785)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (216,107)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)
        

</TABLE>
#### PEOPLE ex rel. LONG, Appellant, v. BOARD OF SUP’RS OF ROCKLAND COUNTY, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 15, 1906.)

Proceedings by the people of the state of New York, on the relation of Henry Long, against the board of supervisors of Rockland county.

No opinion. Motion granted.
#### § 29.2570 Wet (W).

Any sound tobacco containing excessive moisture to the extent that it is in unsafe or doubtful-keeping order. Wet applies to any tobacco which is not damaged but which is likely to damage if treated in the customary manner. (See Rule 21, § 29.2637.) (For extremely wet or watered tobacco, see rule 22, § 29.2638.)

[37 FR 13626, July 12, 1972. Redesignated at 49 FR 16757, Apr. 20, 1984 and 51 FR 40406, Nov. 7, 1986]
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 on Form 10-K of SkyWest, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended
December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Jerry C. Atkin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:



/s/ JERRY C. ATKIN Jerry C. Atkin Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerFebruary 25, 2011


This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 2148** 

MERVIN HINSON

- BEY , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. CITY OF ALBERMARLE POLICE DEPARTMENT; B. J. TIPTON, Officer , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. Catherine C. Eagles , District Judge. ( 1:16

- cv - 00402

- CCE

- JLW )

Submitted : February 16, 2017 Dec ided: February 21, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN , Circuit Judge , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Mervin Hinson

- Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Bradley Philip Kline, CRANFILL, SUMNER & HARTZOG, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Mervin Hinson

- Bey appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) civil rights action for failure to state a claim
. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Hinson

- Bey ’ s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Hinson

- Bey has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc. , 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly , we affirm the district
court ’ s judgment . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court a nd argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 28.4 Classing offices.

Classing Offices shall be maintained at points designated by the Administrator. Requests for the review of the classification and/or comparison of cotton performed by Classing Offices may be referred to the Quality Control Section.

[52 FR 30881, Aug. 18, 1987]
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsBifurcation theory applied to aircraft motionsBifurcation theory is used to analyze the nonlinear dynamic stability characteristics of single-degree-of-freedom motions of an aircraft or a flap about a trim position. The bifurcation theory analysis reveals that when the bifurcation parameter, e.g., the angle of attack, is increased beyond a critical value at which the aerodynamic damping vanishes, a new solution representing finite-amplitude periodic motion bifurcates from the previously stable steady motion. The sign of a simple criterion, cast in terms of aerodynamic properties, determines whether the bifurcating solution is stable (supercritical) or unstable (subcritical). For the pitching motion of a flap-plate airfoil flying at supersonic/hypersonic speed, and for oscillation of a flap at transonic speed, the bifurcation is subcritical, implying either that exchanges of stability between steady and periodic motion are accompanied by hysteresis phenomena, or that potentially large aperiodic departures from steady motion may develop. On the other hand, for the rolling oscillation of a slender delta wing in subsonic flight (wing rock), the bifurcation is found to be supercritical. This and the predicted amplitude of the bifurcation periodic motion are in good agreement with experiments.Document ID19850015394Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeConference PaperAuthorsHui, W. H.*(Waterloo Univ. Ontario, Canada)*Tobak, M.*(NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateMarch 1, 1985Subject CategoryAerodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-86704REPT-85171NAS 1.15:86704Accession Number85N23705Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAGW-575Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19850015394.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
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

###### Editorial Note on Part 281

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 281 appear at 78 FR 11972, Feb. 21, 2013.

#### § 281.9 Funding.

(a) *Agency of State government.* From the funds available to carry out this provision beginning July 1, 1979, FNS may pay to each agency of State government administering a SNAP on a reservation, 75 percent of all approved administrative costs, such as: Certification, issuance, outreach, fair hearings and quality control, incurred on the reservation for residents of the reservation and approved by FNS to meet standards set by the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. FNS may pay each agency of State government administering a SNAP on a reservation 75 percent of all approved administrative costs incurred off the reservation for activities begun after the effective date of these regulations that are primarily directed at providing better services for Indians on the reservation, such as hiring an interpreter or an Indian outreach worker, or moving a certification or issuance center closer to a reservation. The provisions of part 277 apply to any funds received under this section.

(b) *Indian tribal organization acting as State agency.* From the funds available to carry out the provisions of this part beginning October 1, 1979, FNS is authorized to pay to each ITO acting as a State agency and administering a SNAP on a reservation 75 percent of all administrative costs approved by FNS as needed for operation of a SNAP on a reservation. Any approval for payment of funds in excess of 75 percent must be based on compelling justification that such additional amounts are necessary for the effective operation of SNAP on the reservation. The provisions of part 277 apply to any funds received under this section.
Exhibit 32.2  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*  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cascade Technologies Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Gene Scher, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to his knowledge, that:  (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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: May 10, 2012  /s/ Gene ScherName:Gene ScherTitle:Chief Financial Officer  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Cascade Technologies Corp. and will be retained by Cascade Technologies Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.   *This certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
Exhibit 10.31


 


FOURTH ADDENDUM TO
LEASE DATED JULY 6, 1994, BY AND BETWEEN


H-K ASSOCIATES,
(LESSOR) AND FOCUS ENHANCEMENTS, INC., (LESSEE) FOR PREMISES 1370 DELL AVENUE,
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA.


 


Whereas Lessee desires to
renew its above referenced Lease. Lessor and Lessee agree to modify the
existing Lease with the following changes:


 


1.     Premises:


Premises consist of
27,500 square feet of space.


 


2.     Term:


                        The
term shall be for Three (3) years, commencing January 1, 2005, and ending

December 31, 2007.


 


3.     Rent:


Rent shall be based on a
NNN Lease as per the following:


First year      - $22,000.00 per month.


Second year  - $22,000.00 per month.


Third year    - 
$22,880.00 per month.


 


4.     Security
Deposit:


Lessee currently has a
Security Deposit on account with Lessor in the amount of $28,875.00.


$5,995.00 of Lessee’s
Security Deposit will be applied to the January 2005 rent. This will bring
Lessee’s total Security Deposit to $22,888.00.


 


5 .    Right
to Renew Lease:


Lessee shall have the
right to renew this Lease for one 3 year period.  Lessee shall give Lessor written notice of
its intent to renew, not less than 180 days prior to the expiration of  the Lease. 
Rent for the renewal shall be as follows:


First year      - $0.90 NNN per square foot per month.


Second year - $0.95 NNN
per square foot per month.


Third year    - $1.00 NNN per square foot per month.


 


6.     NNN
Expenses:


Lessee’s NNN expenses
shall not exceed an average of $0.09 per square foot, per month, annually, for
the first and second years of said Lease, and $0.10 per square foot, per month,
annually, for the third year of said Lease. Upon Lessee’s renewal of option,
(see Paragraph 5), the NNN expenses shall not exceed an average of $0.11 per
square foot, per month, annually for the first year, $0.12 per square foot, per
month, annually for the second year, and $0.12 per square foot, per month,
annually for the third year.


 





















 


Addendum to Lease dated
July 6, 1994


 


7.               Cancellation
Option and Buy Out:


Lessee shall have the
option to cancel this Lease, provided, Lessee gives Lessor a

minimum of 90 days written notice prior to canceling said Lease.


The cost to Lessee to
cancel the Lease shall be as follows:


a                  To cancel during
the period of months one (1) through twelve (12), Lessee shall pay

to Lessor an amount equal to six (6) months rent.


b.              To cancel during the
period of months thirteen (13) through (24), Lessee shall pay

to Lessor an amount equal to four (4) months rent.


c.               To cancel during
the period of months twenty five (25) through thirty six (36), Lessee

shall pay to Lessor an amount equal to two (2) months rent.


 


	
  H-K ASSOCIATES 

  	
  FOCUS ENHANCEMENTS

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By 

  	
  /s/ Neil Hamm

  	
   

  	
  By 

  	
  /s/ Gary Williams

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date 

  	
  1/4/05

  	
   

  	
  Date 

  	
  1/3/05

  	
   

  
										



 


2
§ 25.601 Delegation of authority. ( a ) *Program administration.* The Deputy Administrator, Office of Community Development, shall be responsible for the overall development of policy and administration of the USDA EZ/EC grant program.
( b ) *Funding official.* Unless otherwise provided, the state director is responsible for implementing the authorities in this subpart, consistent with the guidance issued by the Office of Community Development. Except for grant approval and environmental determination authorities, state directors may re-delegate their duties to qualified staff members.
( c ) *Environmental review determinations.* The funding official is responsible for making environmental review determinations.
( d ) *Authority to issue regulations.* The Under Secretary, Rural Development, may promulgate regulations under this part.
# Letters to Credit Unions and Other Guidance

From time to time, the NCUA will provide guidance and other information to the credit union system on regulatory and supervisory matters, trends affecting federally insured credit unions and potential risks and threats.
              - Letters to Credit Unions  — Provide guidance on specific NCUA policies and procedures, compliance, governance, and other timely issues that affect all federally insured credit unions.
              - Letters to Federal Credit Unions  — Provide guidance on specific NCUA policies and procedures, compliance, governance, and other timely issues that affect only credit unions with a federal charter.
              - Risk Alerts  — Detail practices or external threats that potentially are a significant risk to the safety and soundness of the credit union system.
              - Regulatory Alerts  — Provide guidance on rules and regulations from other agencies that all credit unions must comply with.
              - Supervisory Letters  — Provide the NCUA’s examiners with instructions and information on a range of supervisory and regulatory issues.
              - Accounting Bulletins  — Provide guidance and instructions on how changes in generally accepted accounting principles and other regulatory initiatives affect how credit unions report these items in their financial statements.
              - Consumer Financial Protection Updates  — Announce new activity on consumer compliance laws, regulations and guidance.
              - Letters to Corporate Credit Unions  — Provide guidance letters to inform corporate credit unions about specific NCUA policies and procedures, compliance, governance, and other timely issues.

You can search these regulatory letters going back to 1979 by document type, the year issued, by subject and by title or keywords. Please note that obsolete letters are not included.

< Previous

1

2

3
...
6

7

Next >

The NCUA is committed to providing an excellent user experience to all individuals, including persons with disabilities. If you require an accommodation to access information on or to use this website, contact us to request one. Please visit the NCUA's Accessibility Statement for additional information.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1951

#### Editorial Notes:

1. Some of the exhibits referenced in this part 1951 are not published in the Code of Federal Regulations. Exhibits are available in any Rural Development office.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1951 appear at 80 FR 9890-9894, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1951.4-1951.6 [Reserved]
#### In the Matter of Mary Robinson, Petitioner, v Barbara Blum, as Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services, Respondent.

— Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review so much of a determination of the respondent State commissioner, dated January 12, 1978 and made after a statutory fair hearing, as affirmed a determination of the local agency to reduce petitioner’s public assistance in order to recoup overpayments made at a time when petitioner was alleged to have had income tax refunds as available resources. Petition granted to the extent that the determination is annulled insofar as reviewed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remanded to the respondent State commissioner for a new hearing in accordance herewith. The proceedings at the fair hearing were preserved by an electronic tape recorder. It is not denied that the typed transcript of the testimony at the hearing contains numerous omissions of words, phrases and/or sentences indicated by the word "unintelligible”. Under these circumstances the transcript was not complete and the State commissioner’s determination was not based upon a full record (see *Matter of Gutierrez v Blum,*73 AD2d 690). Damiani, J. P., O’Connor, Lazer and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### Welsh *vs.*Eakle.

'Slander. Case 138.

Error to the Cumberland '"ir- ir1; Monroe Judge;

*Words. Slander. Construction. Jury.*

When words spoken are susceptible of two moanini??!, the one slanderous tho other not, tho jury to determine in what sense tosed.

*Walker,*for defendant.

October 6.

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for slander — and set forth the words published in the following manner: “Yon (meaning plaintiff) stole my (meaning defendant) corn out of the field (mean* ing out of the defendant’s field, where he had a pilo of corn gathered.”)

Upon the trial of the general issue, after the plaintiff had proved the publication of the words as charged, and also proved that the defendant had, at the time of uttering the words, arid prior *thereto,*corn lying in a pile in his field, the court instructed the jury to find, as in case of a nonsuit; and verdict and judgment were rendered accordingly against the plaintiff, of which he now complains.

As the words were susceptible of a two-fold meaning, one imputing a felony, and the other amounting to a trespass only, it was the province of the jury to determine, from the circumstances, in what sense they were uttered and understood. This is the rational and legal rule as now well established by authority, See Starkic on Slander, 44 to 55, and the authorities there cited.

Wherefore, the instruction was improper; and for that cause the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.