alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### NUM BER 13-0 9-00 266- CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ TR OY MEA DOR S, A pp ellan t, v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ On A p p ea l f ro m th e 31 9t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ M EM ORA ND UM OPIN ION Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, Garza, a nd Ve la M emo rand um Opin ion Pe r Cu riam Appel lan t, Troy

M eadors, by

and throug h hi s attor ney , hasfil ed a moti on to w it hdraw hisap peal bec ause he no lon g er des ires to prosec ute i t. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 42 .2(a). W it hout pass ing on t he mer it s o f the c ase, we g ra nt t he moti on to w it hdraw the appeal and dis mis s t he appe al pursu a n t to Texas Rul e of Appel lat e Procedu re 42.2 (a ). H av ing2

dis mis sed the a ppeal at a p p e llant 's req uest , no moti on for re hear ing w il l be ent ertai ned, and our mandate w il l is sue forthw it h.
PERC UR IAM Do not p ubl is h. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 4 7.2( b)
. Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s 1 st day

of Oct ober , 200 9.
#### X-RAY STOVE POLISH CO., Appellant, v. WALSH, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

June 15, 1906.)

Action by the X-Ray Stove Polish Company against G. Wells Walsh. P. .Allen, for appellant. E. G. Stevens, for respondent.

PER CURIAi\~f.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

McLAUGHLIN, J., dissents.
EXHIBIT 13.2

              SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                        THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002*

In connection  with the annual report of North  American  Nickel Inc.  (formerly
Widescope  Resources  Inc.) (the  "Company")  on Form 20-F for the period ending
December 31, 2010 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Edward D. Ford,  Chief Financial  Officer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  the  Report  containing  the  financial  statements  of the  Company  fully
     complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.

Date: April, 19 2011


/s/ Edward D. Ford
--------------------------------------------
Edward D. Ford
Chief Financial Officer


* A signed original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 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.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

CURTIS ALEXANDER MOHAMMED,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:19cv466-MW/MAF

LT. ERICA BELLAMY,

Defendant.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report 

and Recommendation. ECF No. 4. Upon consideration, no objections having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as this Court’s 

opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “This case is DISMISSED for 

failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a Court Order.” The Clerk shall also 

close the file.

SO ORDERED on April 27, 2020.

s/Mark E. Walker 

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-00466-MW-MAF Document 6 Filed 04/27/20 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Peter West, Respondent, v. John P. McNelis et al., Constituting the Board of Appeals of the City of Niagara Falls, et al., Appellants.

Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The determination of the Board of Appeals was arbitrary and capricious and not supported by any substantial evidence. (Appeal from order of Niagara Special Term in a proceeding pursuant to article 78, CPLR, setting aside the determination of the Board of Appeals.) Present — Williams, P. J., Goldman, Henry, Del Vecchio and Marsh, JJ.
§ 25.621 Ineligible grant purposes. Grant funds may not be used: ( a ) As a source of local matching funds required for other federal grants;
( b ) To fund political activities;
( c ) To duplicate current services or replace or substitute for financial support provided from other sources. If the current service is inadequate, however, grant funds may be used to augment financial support or service levels beyond what is currently provided;
( d ) To pay costs of preparing the application package for designation under this program;
( e ) To pay costs of a project which were incurred prior to the execution date of the applicable memorandum of agreement;
( f ) To pay for assistance to any private business enterprise which does not have at least 51 percent ownership by those who are either citizens of the United States or reside in the United States after being legally admitted for permanent residence;
( g ) To pay any judgment or debt owed to the United States;
( h ) To assist in the relocation of businesses;
( i ) To support or promote gambling; or
( j ) For political lobbying.
Exhibit
      10.26


Additional
        Compensation Information
 
 
 Short-Term
        Incentives
  A
        description of short term
        incentive opportunities for executive officers for 2005 is included under
        Item
        1.01 of the Company’s Form 8-K filed February 14, 2005, except for Patrick
        J. Ferguson, which is included in the Company’s Form 8-K filed May 12, 2005 and
        for Francis J. Tarallo, which is included under Item 5 of the Company’s
        Form 10-Q filed August 12, 2005. Each of these items is incorporated by
        reference herein. The terms of the bonus opportunities were modified to take
        the
        acquisition of CP Medical and the impact of the restructuring announced in
        August 2005 into consideration, as described under Item 1.01 of the Company’s
        8-K filed January 5, 2006 and incorporated by reference herein.
  Information
        regarding short-term
        incentives paid for 2005 and a description of short-term incentive opportunities
        for 2006 is included under Item 1.01 of the Company’s Form 8-K filed February
        22, 2006, and incorporated by reference herein.
  Information
        regarding short-term
        incentives paid for 2006 and a description of short-term incentive opportunities
        for 2007 is included under Item 5.02 of the Company’s Form 8-K filed February
        20, 2007, and incorporated by reference herein.
 
 Long-term
        Incentives
  From
        2004 through 2006, the
        Company granted Performance Restricted Right Stock Units as long-term
        incentives. The forms of such awards are listed as exhibits to this Form 10-K.
  In
        February 2007, each named
        executive officer was granted awards under the Company’s long-term incentive
        program for the January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2009 performance period.
        The program is described in Item 5.02 of the Company’s Form 8-K filed on
        February 20, 2007, and the forms of awards are listed as exhibits to this
        Form
        10-K.
 
 Base
        Salaries
  The
        following annual base
        salaries for the Company’s named executive officers were established effective
        January 1, 2007:
 
 **Executive
                  Officer**
              **Annual
                  Base Salary**M.
                  Christine Jacobs
              $511,500Francis
                  J. Tarallo
              $265,000Bruce
                  W. Smith
              $270,000Patrick
                  J. Ferguson
              $242,000R.
                  Michael O’Bannon
              $203,000
 
 Director
        Compensation
  A
        description of director
        compensation for 2006 is included on page 15 of the Company’s proxy statement
        filed on March 27, 2006, and incorporated by reference herein.
###### 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.

#### § 282.2 Funding.

Federal financial participation may be made available to demonstration, research, and evaluation projects awarded by FNS through grants and contracts. Funds may not be transferred from one project to another. FNS will pay all costs incurred during the project, up to the level established in the grant, or in the terms and conditions of the contract. FNS may grant time extensions of the project upon approval. Funding for additional costs is subject to existing Federal grant and contract procedures.

[Amdt. 371, 61 FR 60012, Nov. 26, 1996]
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2388 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2388

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To take certain Federal lands located in El Dorado County, California, 
    into trust for the benefit of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok 
                    Indians, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LAND INTO TRUST FOR THE SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK 
              INDIANS.

    (a) In General.--The land described in subsection (b) is hereby 
taken into trust for the benefit of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok 
Indians, subject to valid existing rights and management agreements 
related to easements and rights-of-way.
    (b) Land Description.--The land taken into trust pursuant to 
subsection (a) is the approximately 40.852 acres of Federal land under 
the administrative jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management 
identified as ``Conveyance boundary'' on the map titled ``Shingle 
Springs Land Conveyance/Draft'' and dated June 7, 2012, including 
improvements and appurtenances thereto.
    (c) Gaming.--Class II and class III gaming under the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) shall not be permitted at any 
time on the land taken into trust pursuant to subsection (a).

            Passed the House of Representatives December 3, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2388

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To take certain Federal lands located in El Dorado County, California, 
    into trust for the benefit of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok 
                    Indians, and for other purposes.
```
#### § 29.3558 Type 35.

That type of air-cured tobacco commonly known as One Sucker Air-cured, Kentucky-Tennessee-Indiana One Sucker, or Dark Air-cured One Sucker, including the upper Cumberland District One Sucker, and produced principally in northern Tennessee, south central Kentucky, and southern Indiana.

[30 FR 9207, July 23, 1965. Redesignated at 49 FR 16759, Apr. 20, 1984]
PUBLIC LAW 108–337—OCT. 18, 2004 118 STAT. 1357

Public Law 108–337

108th Congress

An Act

To authorize the subdivision and dedication of restricted land owned by Alaska

Natives.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Alaska Native Allotment Subdivision Act’’.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) RESTRICTED LAND.—The term ‘‘restricted land’’ means

land in the State that is subject to Federal restrictions against

alienation and taxation.

(2) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary

of the Interior.

(3) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means the State of Alaska.

SEC. 3. SUBDIVISION AND DEDICATION OF ALASKA NATIVE

RESTRICTED LAND.

(a) IN GENERAL.—An Alaska Native owner of restricted land

may, subject to the approval of the Secretary—

(1) subdivide the restricted land in accordance with the

laws of the—

(A) State; or

(B) applicable local platting authority; and

(2) execute a certificate of ownership and dedication with

respect to the restricted land subdivided under paragraph (1)

with the same effect under State law as if the restricted land

subdivided and dedicated were held by unrestricted fee simple

title.

(b) RATIFICATION OF PRIOR SUBDIVISIONS AND DEDICATIONS.—

Any subdivision or dedication of restricted land executed before

the date of enactment of this Act that has been approved by the

Secretary and by the relevant State or local platting authority,

as appropriate, shall be considered to be ratified and confirmed

by Congress as of the date on which the Secretary approved the

subdivision or dedication.

SEC. 4. EFFECT ON STATUS OF LAND NOT DEDICATED.

Except in a case in which a specific interest in restricted

land is dedicated under section 3(a)(2), nothing in this Act terminates, diminishes, or otherwise affects the continued existence and

applicability of Federal restrictions against alienation and taxation

43 USC 1617

note.

43 USC 1617

note.

43 USC 1617

note.

Alaska Native

Allotment

Subdivision Act.

43 USC 1617

note.

Oct. 18, 2004

[S. 1421]

118 STAT. 1358 PUBLIC LAW 108–337—OCT. 18, 2004

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 1421:

SENATE REPORTS: No. 108–251 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 150 (2004):

Sept. 15, considered and passed Senate.

Oct. 4, considered and passed House.

Æ

on restricted land or interests in restricted land (including restricted

land subdivided under section 3(a)(1)).

Approved October 18, 2004.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Arnold Geller, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 29, 1966, affirmed. The prosecutor was entitled to cross-examine appellant, for purposes of impeachment, as to a vicious or immoral act which had been the basis for a prior adjudication of appellant as a vouthful offender *(People*v. *Hurst,*13 A D 2d 821, 822, affd. 10 N Y 2d 939, 940). *People*v. *Sarra*(283 App. Div. 876, affd. 308 N. Y. 302) is not to the contrary, holding only that a prosecutor may not elicit directly testimony that the defendant was adjudged a youthful offender and may not characterize the act upon which that adjudication was based as a “crime”. The other points raised by appellant have been considered and, in our opinion, are without merit. Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Rabin, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JOYCE VERCAUTEREN,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 4:20cv146-MW/EMT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report 

and Recommendation. ECF No. 5. Upon consideration, no objection having been 

filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as this Court’s 

opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “This case is DISMISSED without 

prejudice for Petitioner’s failure to comply with an order of the Court.” The Clerk 

shall also close the file.

SO ORDERED on July 9, 2020.

s/ MARK E. WALKER

Chief United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00146-MW-EMT Document 7 Filed 07/09/20 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2412 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2412

   To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of 
  Veterans Affairs to consider the best interest of the veteran when 
   determining whether the veteran should receive certain contracted 
                              health care.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 18, 2013

    Mr. Barber (for himself and Mr. Heck of Nevada) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of 
  Veterans Affairs to consider the best interest of the veteran when 
   determining whether the veteran should receive certain contracted 
                              health care.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans Health Access Act''.

SEC. 2. DETERMINATION OF CONTRACT CARE AUTHORITY FOR HEALTH CARE NEEDS 
              OF VETERANS.

    Section 1703 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``When Department 
        facilities'' and everything that follows through ``required,'' 
        and inserting ``In any case described in subsection (e)(1),''; 
        and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(e) Eligibility.--(1) A case described in this paragraph is any 
case--
            ``(A) when Department facilities are not capable of 
        furnishing--
                    ``(i) economical hospital care or medical services 
                because of geographical inaccessibility; or
                    ``(ii) the care or services required; or
            ``(B) in which a physician of the Department determines 
        that it is in the best interest of a veteran to receive 
        hospital or medical services furnished in a non-Department 
        facility in accordance with subsection (a).
    ``(2) The Secretary shall determine whether or not to furnish to a 
veteran care or services in a non-Department facility pursuant to this 
section by the date that is 30 days after the date on which the veteran 
requests such care or services.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 319.8a Administrative instructions relating to the entry of cotton and covers into Guam.

The plants and products specified in § 319.8(a) may be imported into Guam without further permit, other than the authorization contained in this paragraph. Sections 319.8-2 and 319.8-3 shall not be applicable to such importations. In addition, such importations need not comply with the requirements of § 319.8-4 relating to notice of arrival inasmuch as there is available to the inspector the essential information normally supplied by the importer at the time of importation. Sections 319.8-5 through 319.8-27 shall not be applicable to importations into Guam. Inspection of such importations may be made under the general authority of § 330.105(a) of this chapter. If an importation is found infected, infested, or contaminated with any plant pest and is not subject to disposal under this part, disposition may be made in accordance with § 330.106 of this chapter.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 2161

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. THOMAS G. ELLIS; THOMAS H. VETTER; CHAREL WINSTON, Relief Defendants , Defendants

- Appellants , and NORTH STAR FINANCE LLC; YASUO ODA; MICHAEL K. MARTIN; SHARON L. SALINAS; CAPITAL SOURCE FUNDING LLC; CAPITAL SOURCE LENDING LLC; GOODWILL FUNDING INC., Relief Defendants , Defendants,

v. ANDREW HUTCHISON; GRIFFITH THOMAS ELLIS , Third Party Defendants

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. George Jarrod Hazel , District Judge. ( 8:15

- cv
- 01339

- GJH )

Submitted : September 30, 2020 Decided: October 23, 2020

Before MOTZ , FLOYD, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.2 Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Thomas G. Ellis , Thomas H. Vetter , Charel Winston , Appellants Pro Se. Sarah R ibstein Prins , Office of the General Counsel, UNITED S TATES SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION , Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Thomas G. Ellis, Thomas H. Vetter, and Charel Winston appeal the district court’s
order granting summary judgment to the Securities and Exchange Commission in its civil enforcement action and ordering disgorgement of all ill

- gotten funds

. * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. According ly, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. North Star Fi n. , LLC , No. 8:15

- cv
- 01339

- GJH (D. Md . Aug. 1 6 , 2019) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

* Although North Star Finance, LLC, and Goodwill Funding Inc. were listed on the notice of appeal, those entities are not permitted to proceed pro se on appeal. As neither entity is represented by counsel in this court, we have not considered any claim as to them.
§ 3.2 Authority. ( a ) Generally, the regulations in this part are issued under the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA) (31 U.S.C. 3701, 3711-3720) and the Federal Claims Collection Standards (FCCS) issued pursuant to the DCIA by Treasury and Justice (31 CFR parts 901-904) that prescribe government-wide standards for administrative collection, compromise, suspension, or termination of agency collection action, disclosure of debt information to credit reporting agencies, referral of claims to private collection contractors for resolution, and referral to Justice for litigation to collect debts owed the government. The regulations under this part also are issued under Treasury regulations implementing DCIA (31 CFR part 285) and related statutes and regulations governing the offset of Federal salaries (5 U.S.C. 5512 and 5514; 5 CFR part 550, subpart K) and administrative offset of tax refunds (31 U.S.C. 3720A).
( b ) With respect to agency specific provisions of this part, the following authorities are applicable: ( 1 ) The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC): section 4 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714b).
( 2 ) The Farm Service Agency (FSA): sections 331, 331A, 331D, and 373 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (ConAct) (7 U.S.C. 1981, 1981a, 1981d, and 2008h).
( 3 ) The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC): section 506(j) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1506(j)).