alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 4284.508 Use of grant funds. Grant funds may be used to pay up to 75 percent (95 percent where the grantee is a 1994 Institution) of the cost of establishing and operating centers for rural cooperative development. Matching funds contributed by the applicant may include a loan from another federal source. Grant funds may be used for, but are not limited to, providing the following to individuals, cooperatives, small businesses and other similar entities in rural areas served by the Center: ( a ) Applied research, feasibility, environmental and other studies that may be useful for the purpose of cooperative development.
( b ) Collection, interpretation and dissemination of principles, facts, technical knowledge, or other information for the purpose of cooperative development.
( c ) Providing training and instruction for the purpose of cooperative development.
( d ) Providing loans and grants for the purpose of cooperative development in accordance with the subpart.
( e ) Providing technical assistance, research services and advisory services for the purpose of cooperative development.
§ 51.2543 U.S. Non-Split. “U.S. Non-Split” consists of non-split pistachio nuts in the shell which meet the following requirements: ( a ) Basic requirements: ( 1 ) Free from: ( i ) Foreign material;
( ii ) Loose kernels;
( iii ) Shell pieces;
( iv ) Particles and dust; and,
( v ) Blanks.
( b ) Shells: ( 1 ) Free from damage by: ( i ) Adhering hull material; and,
( ii ) Dark stain.
( c ) Kernels: ( 1 ) Well dried, or very well dried when specified in connection with the grade.
( 2 ) Free from damage by: ( i ) Immature kernels;
( ii ) Kernel spotting; and,
( iii ) Other internal (kernel) defects.
( 3 ) Free from serious damage by: ( i ) Minor insect or vertebrate injury;
( ii ) Insect damage;
( iii ) Mold;
( iv ) Rancidity;
( v ) Decay; and,
( vi ) Other Internal (kernel) defects.
( d ) The nuts are of a size not less than 30 ⁄ 64 inch in diameter as measured by a round hole screen.
( e ) For Tolerances, see § 51.2544.
[68 FR 50683, Aug. 22, 2003]
#### In the Matter of 2960 Tavern Inc., Petitioner, v New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

[814 NYS2d 871]

Determination by respondent, dated April 7, 2005, sustaining two charges of suffering or permitting gambling on the premises and imposing a $3,500 civil penalty, or, alternatively, a 25-day suspension and $1,000 bond claim, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and this CPLR article 78 proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Emily Jane Goodman, J.], entered July 7, 2005) dismissed, without costs.

The finding of gambling permitted on the licensed premises, in violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 106 (6), is supported by substantial evidence *(see Matter of JAJK, Inc. v Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control,*272 AD2d 963 [2000]; *Matter of Bubha Rest, v New York State Liq. Auth.,*160 AD2d 539 [1990]). The record also supports respondent’s finding that the video game in question is a gambling device in violation of Rules of the State Liquor Authority (9 NYCRR) § 53.1 (t) *(Matter of Plato’s Cave Corp. v State Liq. Auth.,*68 NY2d 791 [1986]; *Matter of Tom’s Log Cabin v New York State Liq. Auth.,*214 AD2d 492 [1995]). The penalty imposed was not so disproportionate to the offenses as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness *(Matter of Rontim Rest. v New York State Liq. Auth.,*206 AD2d 485 [1994]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Marlow, Sullivan, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

March 13, 2018

No. 17-2170

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

TENISHA CORTES,

 Appellant

(E.D. Pa. No. 2-10-cr-00770-010)

Present: MCKEE, AMBRO and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges

1. Letter from Attorney Tomika N.S. Patterson, Esq. for Appellee USA,

advising the Court of a typographical error on page 6, treated as a Motion 

to Amend Opinion.

Respectfully,

Clerk/JK

_________________________________ORDER________________________________

The foregoing motion to amend opinion is hereby granted. A corrected opinion will be 

filed. 

By the Court,

s/ L. Felipe Restrepo

Circuit Judge

Dated: March 16, 2018
Searched for **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10043.pdf**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10043.pdf**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
Unassociated Document


    Exhibit 10.33


     

    PROMISSORY
NOTE


     

    
      
        	
                $100,000

              	
                Danang,
      Vietnam

              	
                May
      5, 2009

              


      

    

    


     

    For value
received, receipt of which is acknowledged, DotVN Company, Ltd. (Danang), an
entity established under the laws of the Country of Vietnam, (“Maker”) promises
to pay to Diep Tai, an individual, (“Payee”), or order, at such place as Payee
may designate, the sum of ONE HUNDRED ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NO
CENTS ($101,500.00), plus interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per
annum, on demand with thirty day written notice.

     

    Interest
is paid in arrears on the first of each month.

     

    If action
be instituted on this note, Maker promises to pay such sum as the Court may fix
as attorneys fees.

     

    This note
will inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the respective heirs,
executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the Maker and
Payee.

     

    IN
WITNESS THERETO, Maker has affixed its signature by a duly authorized officer
this fifth day of May 2009.

     

    


    
      
        	 	DOT
      VN COMPANY, LTD. (DANANG)	 
	 	 	 	 
	
                 

              	/s/ Lee
      Johnson	 
	 	By: 	Lee
      Johnson	 
	 	Its:	Director
      General	 


      

    

     

     

    
      PROMISSORY
NOTE
#### § 51.1314 Overripe.

*Overripe* means dead ripe, very mealy or soft, past commercial utility.
KOREAN • APRIL 2004
5'4"

5'5"

5'6"

5'7"

5'8"

5'9"

5'10"

5'11"

6'0"

6'1"

6'2"

6'3"

6'4"

145

150

155

159

164

169

174

179

184

189

194

200

205

5'4"

5'5"

5'6"

5'7"

5'8"

5'9"

5'10"

5'11"

6'0"

6'1"

6'2"

6'3"

6'4"

134

138

142

146

151

155

160

165

169

174

179

184

189

5'4"

5'5"

5'6"

5'7"

5'8"

5'9"

5'10"

5'11"

6'0"

6'1"

6'2"

6'3"

6'4"

151

156

161

166

171

176

181

186

191

197

202

208

213

NIH Publication No. 04-5524 KOREAN • APRIL 2004

NDEP-74KO
#### § 51.2275 Application.

The standards contained in this subpart apply only to walnuts commonly known as English or Persian walnuts (Juglans regia). They do not apply to walnuts commonly known as black walnuts (Juglans nigra).
#### Yehiel Minemar et al., Respondents, v Yuliya Khramova, Respondent, and City of New York, Appellant. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[815 NYS2d 210]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant City of New York appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated January 13, 2005, as denied its cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs, the cross motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the defendant City of New York, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

While approaching the intersection of 20th Avenue and 81st Street in Brooklyn, the plaintiff Yehiel Minemar brought his motor vehicle to a stop at a red light that governed traffic on 20th Avenue, with two or three cars stopped in front of his vehicle. The vehicles in front of Minemar waited for approximately 30 to 60 seconds at the red light and then proceeded through *751the intersection while the light remained red. Mr. Minemar waited another 30 to 60 seconds before looking down 81st Street, a one-way street, for oncoming traffic, and upon seeing none approaching, proceeded into the intersection while the light was still red. Approximately halfway through the intersection, his car was struck by a second motor vehicle being operated on 81st Street by the defendant Yuliya Khramova.

The plaintiffs subsequently commenced the present action, claiming, inter alia, that the accident was proximately caused by the City of New York’s alleged negligence in maintaining the traffic light. The City cross-moved, among other things, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

In this case, where the plaintiff driver was fully aware of the malfunctioning traffic light and the consequent need to exercise caution in proceeding through the intersection, any negligence on the part of the City in maintaining the traffic fight was not the proximate cause of the accident. Accordingly, the complaint insofar as asserted against the City should have been dismissed *(see Bisceglia v International Bus. Machs.,*287 AD2d 674, 676 [2001]). Florio, J.P., Adams, Santucci and Lunn, JJ., concur.
#### § 50.10 Definitions.

*Director.* The Director of the Division or any employee of the Division to whom authority to act in his or her stead is delegated.

*Division.* The Division of the Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture, initiating the withdrawal of inspection, certification, or grading service.

*Mailing.* Depositing an item in the United States mail with postage affixed and addressed as necessary to cause the item to be delivered to the address shown by ordinary mail, certified mail, or registered mail.
#### Arvin Dale ROCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, In their individual and official capacities; Larry Linton, Regional Vice President for Correctional Medical Services, in his individual and official capacities; Keith Ivens, Regional Medical Director for Correctional Medical Services, in his individual and official capacities; William Steiger, Health Service Administrator for Correctional Medical Services at Mississippi State Penitentiary, in his individual and official capacities; Dr. John Bearry, Facility Medical Director for Correctional Medical Services at Mississippi State Penitentiary, in his individual and official capacities; James *253R. Woodson, III, Dentist for Correctional Medical Services at Mississippi State Penitentiary, in his individual and official capacities; Debbie Davenport, Correctional Lieutenant at Unit 26; Jane Hall, Correctional Officer at Unit 26; Jane Hill, Nurse for Correctional Medical Services at Mississippi State Penitentiary, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-60589

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2007.

Arvin Dale Rochell, Parehman, MS, pro se.

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Arvin D. Rochell, Mississippi prisoner #83848, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) regarding his appeal from *254the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. His motion to proceed IFP on appeal is construed as a challenge to the district court’s decision certifying that his appeal is not taken in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997).

Rochell has failed to allege facts that raise a deliberate indifference claim. *See Domino v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice,*239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir.2001); *Varnado v. Lynaugh,*920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir.1991). Because this appeal does not raise legal points arguable on their merits, Rochell’s IFP motion is denied and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 42.2. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202; *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983). With this dismissal and the district court’s dismissal, as well as an earlier dismissal of an appeal as frivolous, Rochell has accumulated at least three strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *See Rochell v. Barnett,*84 F.3d 432, 1996 WL 248845 at *1 (5th Cir. Apr.5, 1996) (unpublished). Rochell is advised that he will no longer be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*§ 1915(g).

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED.

*

 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.
Editorial Note on Part 47
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 47 appear at 64 FR 38108, July 15, 1999.

§ 47.12 Intervention. At any time after the institution of a proceeding and before it has been submitted to the Secretary for final consideration, the Secretary or the examiner as defined in § 47.2(i)(1) may, upon petition in writing and for good cause show, permit any person to intervene therein. The petition shall state with preciseness and particularity: ( a ) The petitioner's relationship to the matters involved in the proceeding;
( b ) the nature of the material the petitioner intends to present in evidence;
( c ) the nature of the argument the petitioner intends to make; and
( d ) any other reason that the petitioner should be allowed to intervene.
[10 FR 2209, Feb. 27, 1945, as amended at 60 FR 8459, Feb. 14, 1995; 64 FR 38107, July 15, 1999]
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

May 9, 2008

Mr. Douglas C. Sikes

Provost * Umphrey Law Firm, L.L.P.

P.O. Box 4905

Beaumont, TX 77704

Mr. Bill Davis

Office of the Attorney General of Texas

Office of Solicitor General

PO Box 12548 (MC 059)

Austin, TX 78711-2548

Mr. Sean D. Jordan

Assistant Solicitor General

PO Box 12548 (MC 059)

Austin, TX 78711-2548

RE:Case Number:  07-0457

Court of Appeals Number:  01-04-01084-CV

Trial Court Number:  20,377-C

Style:LINDA THOMAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DAMON HOLLIMON, DECEASED AND ASHLEY DOMINQUE HOLLIMON, INDIVIDUALLY

v.

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION OF THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND GLENDA PIERSON

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas issued the enclosed abatement order in the above-referenced case.

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosure

**Case No. 07-0457Page 2**
19.1309           Contract clauses.       (a)The contracting officer shall insert the clause 52.219-3, Notice of HUBZone Set-Aside or Sole-Source Award, in solicitations and contracts for acquisitions that are set aside or awarded on a sole-source basis to, HUBZone small business concerns under 19.1305 or 19.1306. This includes multiple-award contracts when orders may be set aside for HUBZone small business concerns as described in 8.405-5 and 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F) or when orders may be issued directly to one HUBZone small business concern in accordance with 19.504(c)(1)(ii).                                          (b)The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns, in solicitations and contracts for acquisitions conducted using full and open competition.                                          (c)For use of clause 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting, see the prescription at 19.507(e).                                          (d) For use of clause 52.219-33, Nonmanufacturer Rule, see the prescription at 19.507(h).    **Parent topic:** Subpart 19.13 - Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Program
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. Case No. 1:94cr1055-MW/GRJ

DOUGLAS A. FLYNN,

Petitioner.

___________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 83. Upon consideration, no objections

having been filed by the parties,

IT IS ORDERED:

The amended report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as this

Court’s opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Petitioner’s motion to 

vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, ECF No. 80, is 

DISMISSED as untimely. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.” The 

Magistrate Judge’s prior Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 82, shall be 

terminated by the Clerk inasmuch as an amended report and recommendation was 
2

substituted for the original report. The Clerk shall close the file. 

SO ORDERED on September 28, 2017.

s/Mark E. Walker

United States District Judge
#### § 51.2117 Whole.

*Whole* means that there is less than one-eighth of the kernel chipped off or missing, and that the general contour of the kernel is not materially affected by the missing part.
# 16.206-4 Contract clause.

The *contracting officer**shall*, when *contracting* by negotiation, insert the clause at 52.216-6, Price Redetermination-Retroactive, in *solicitations* and contracts when a fixed-price contract is contemplated and the conditions in 16.206-2 and 16.206-3(a) through (d) apply.

**Parent topic:**16.206 Fixed-ceiling-price contracts with retroactive price redetermination.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from Form 10-Q
for the quarter  ended June 30, 1999 for May Limited  Partnership  1984-2 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000757385
<NAME>                        May Limited Partnership 1984-2
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         81
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  66
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         92
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 239
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   239
<SALES>                                        149
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               152
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  25
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                98
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            98
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   98
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
PUBLIC LAW 107–236—OCT. 9, 2002 116 STAT. 1483

Public Law 107–236

107th Congress

An Act

To adjust the boundaries of Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area,

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. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Santa Monica Mountains National

Recreation Area Boundary Adjustment Act’’.

SEC. 2. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.

Section 507(c) of the National Parks and Recreation Act of

1978 (92 Stat. 3501; 16 U.S.C. 460kk) establishing Santa Monica

Mountains National Recreation Area is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘ ‘Boundary Map, Santa

Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, California, and

Santa Monica Mountains Zone’, numbered SMM–NRA 80,000,

and dated May 1978’’ and inserting ‘‘ ‘Santa Monica Mountains

National Recreation Area and Santa Monica Mountains Zone,

California, Boundary Map’, numbered 80,047–C and dated

August 2001’’; and

(2) by adding the following sentence after the third sentence

of paragraph (2)(A): ‘‘Lands within the ‘Wildlife Corridor Expansion Zone’ identified on the boundary map referred to in paragraph (1) may be acquired only by donation or with donated

funds.’’.

SEC. 3. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

Section 507 of the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978

(92 Stat. 3501; 16 U.S.C. 460kk) establishing Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area is amended—

(1) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ‘‘Committee on Natural

Resources’’ and inserting ‘‘Committee on Resources’’;

(2) in subsection (c)(2)(B), by striking ‘‘of certain’’ in the

first sentence and inserting ‘‘certain’’; and

16 USC 1 note.

Santa Monica

Mountains

National

Recreation Area

Adjustment Act.

California.

Oct. 9, 2002

[H.R. 640]

116 STAT. 1484 PUBLIC LAW 107–236—OCT. 9, 2002

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 640:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 170–90 (Comm. on Resources).

SENATE REPORTS: No. 107–204 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 147 (2001): June 6, considered and passed House.

Vol. 148 (2002): Aug. 1, considered and passed Senate, amended.

Sept. 24, House concurred in Senate amendment.

Æ

(3) in subsection (n)(5), by striking ‘‘laws’’ in the second

sentence and inserting ‘‘laws,’’.

Approved October 9, 2002.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7138

SOLOMON SMITH, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-97-1097)

Submitted: February 16, 1999 Decided: March 16, 1999

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Solomon Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, OFFICE

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Solomon Smith, Jr. appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. Angelone, No. CA-97-1097 (E.D. Va., July

24, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
§ 51.2838 Samples for grade and size determination. Individual samples shall consist of at least 20 pounds for onions packed to meet larger than 21 ⁄ 4 inches maximum diameter. When individual packages contain 20 pounds or more and the onions are packed for Large or Jumbo size or larger the package shall be the sample. When individual packages contain less than 20 pounds, a sufficient number of adjoining packages are opened to provide at least a 20 pound sample, except that for onions packed to meet 21 ⁄ 4 inches maximum diameter or smaller, the sample may consist of either 20 pounds or the individual package.
#### §§ 3555.308-3555.349 [Reserved]