alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 966.30 Vacancies.

To fill committee vacancies, the Secretary may select such members or alternates from unselected nominees on the current nominee list from the district involved, or from nominations made in the manner specified in § 966.27. If the names of nominees to fill any such vacancy are not made available to the Secretary within 30 days after such vacancy occurs, such vacancy may be filled without regard to nominations, which selection shall be made on the basis of the representation provided for in §§ 966.24 through 966.26 inclusive.
§ 760.406 Payment calculation. ( a ) Under this subpart, separate payment rates for eligible livestock owners and eligible livestock contract growers are specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, respectively. Payments for LIP are calculated by multiplying the national payment rate for each livestock category by the number of eligible livestock in excess of normal mortality in each category that died as a result of an eligible adverse weather event. Normal mortality for each livestock category will be determined by FSA on a State-by-State basis using local data sources including, but not limited to, State livestock organizations and the Cooperative Extension Service for the State. Adjustments will be applied as specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
( b ) The LIP national payment rate for eligible livestock owners is based on 75 percent of the average fair market value of the applicable livestock as computed using nationwide prices for the previous calendar year unless some other price is approved by the Deputy Administrator.
( c ) The LIP national payment rate for eligible livestock contract growers is based on 75 percent of the average income loss sustained by the contract grower with respect to the dead livestock.
( d ) The LIP payment calculated for eligible livestock contract growers will be reduced by the amount the participant received from the party who contracted with the producer to raise the livestock for the loss of income from the dead livestock.
Case 2:06-cv-00719-WKW-WC Document 6 Filed 09/28/2006 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00719-WKW-WC Document 6 Filed 09/28/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00719-WKW-WC Document 6 Filed 09/28/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00719-WKW-WC Document 6 Filed 09/28/2006 Page 4 of 4
#### § 1017.18 Joint documents or material.

If a document or material marked as containing UCNI is under consideration for decontrol and falls under the cognizance of another DOE organization or other Government agency, the Reviewing Official or Denying Official must coordinate the decontrol review with that DOE organization or other Government agency. Any disagreement concerning the control or decontrol of any document or material that contains UCNI that was originated by or for DOE or another Government agency is resolved by the Secretary or his or her designee.
#### § 984.14 Handler.

*Handler* means any person who handles inshell or shelled walnuts.

[73 FR 11337, Mar. 3, 2008]
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3246 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Tetraconazole. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 26, 2006 

Mr. FRIST (for Mrs. DOLE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Tetraconazole. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. TETRACONAZOLE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.11.15 1-[2-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-3-(1,1,2,2- 

tetrafluoroethoxy)propyl]-1H-1,2,4-triazole (Tetraconazole) (CAS No. 112281– 

77–3) (provided for in subheading 

2933.99.22) ............................................. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•S 3246 IS 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 7327

MAJOR LENNEL RICHARDSON, III , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. WARDEN ALLEN GANG, Jessup Correctional Institution; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND , Respondents

- Appellees

.

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

. Paula Xinis , District Judge. ( 8:20

- cv - 00474

- PX )

Submitted : May 18 , 2023 Decided: May 22, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Major Lennel Richardson, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7327 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/22/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Major Lennel Richardson, III seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appeala bility will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould f ind the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 580 U.S. 100, 115

- 17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive proc edural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. Limiting our review of the record to t he issues raised in Richardson ’s informal brief ,

we conclude that Richardson has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) ( “ The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief. ” )

. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 22-7327 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/22/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
# Subpart 2953.1 - General

**Parent topic:**PART 2953 - FORMS

## 2953.100 Request for Recommendation by Procurement Review Board DL 1-490.

The following form must be used by the requisitioning office to submit a request for review by the Procurement Review Board as specified in DOLAR 2901 and 2943. This form must be submitted through the Assistant Secretary for the program office to the Director, Division of Acquisition Management Services, for scheduling before the Procurement Review Board. 

## 2953.101 Simplified Acquisition Documentation Checklist DL 1-2216.

The following checklist must be used to document all simplified acquisitions at or below the simplified acquisition threshold. 

## 2953.102 Quotation for Simplified Acquisitions DL 1-2078.

The following form must be used to document all simplified acquisitions above the micro-purchase threshold and below the simplified acquisition threshold. This form may also be used to document commercial acquisitions on a fixed price basis up to $5 million. 

## 2953.103 Acquisition Screening and Review - over $100,000 DL 1-2004.

The requiring organization must complete the following form for all acquisitions above the *simplified acquisition threshold.* This form will then be submitted through the contracting officer to the Office of Small Business Programs for review.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE MARCH
31, 2000 FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           3,945
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 1,690
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          44,566
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            45,533
<LOANS>                                         87,246
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,063
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 140,706
<DEPOSITS>                                     113,519
<SHORT-TERM>                                     4,897
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,157
<LONG-TERM>                                      5,149
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,500
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,484
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 140,706
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  1,918
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  627
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    13
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 2,558
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 870
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 984
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,574
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       45
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,126
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    589
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         589
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       410
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .63
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.98
<LOANS-NON>                                        124
<LOANS-PAST>                                         4
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,011
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       20
<RECOVERIES>                                        27
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,063
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,063
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            215


</TABLE>
#### § 986.71 Safeguards.

The Council, with the approval of the Secretary, may establish through rules such requirements as may be necessary to establish that shipments made pursuant to § 986.70, Handling for special purposes, were handled and used for the purpose stated.
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 118 Filed 09/13/2007 Page 1 of 1
###### Editorial Note on Part 91

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 91 appear at 61 FR 51350, Oct. 2 1996.

#### § 91.8 Who may apply.

An application for service may be made by any individual or interested party including, but not limited to, the United States and any instrumentality or agency thereof, any State, county, municipality, or common carrier, and any authorized agent on behalf of the foregoing.
1028.311-2 Agency solicitation provisions

and contract clauses.

Insert a clause substantially similar to 1052.228-70, Insurance requirements, in all solicitations and

contracts that contain the clause at FAR 52.228-7.

Parent topic: Subpart 1028.3 - Insurance
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

DERON L. BARNETT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06cv725-MHT

) (WO)

REGIONS BANK, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION

This litigation is now before the court on the Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge entered on September 1, 2006 (Doc. # 12), that the defendant’s motion to

dismiss filed August 28, 2006 (Doc. # 9), be granted and that this case be dismissed for want

of jurisdiction.

After a review of the recommendation, to which no timely objections have been filed,

and after an independent review of the entire record, the court believes that the

recommendation should be adopted.

An appropriate judgment will be entered.

DONE, this the 25th day of September, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00725-MHT-CSC Document 13 Filed 09/25/2006 Page 1 of 1
# Subpart 927.2 - Patents

Source:                                60 FR 11815, Mar. 2, 1995, unless otherwise noted.                               

**Parent topic:**PART 927 - PATENTS, DATA, AND COPYRIGHTS

## 927.200 Scope of subpart.

When consulting 48 CFR part 27, subpart 27.2 of the FAR, consider “research, development, and demonstration” to replace the phrase “research and development” or “R&D,” for the purposes of DOE actions.   

## 927.201 Authorization and consent.

## 927.201-1 General.

In certain contracting situations, such as those involving research, development, or demonstration projects, consideration should be given to the impact of third party-owned patents covering technology that may be incorporated in the project which patents may ultimately affect widespread commercial use of the project results. In such situations, Patent Counsel shall be consulted to determine what modifications, if any, are to be made to the utilization of the Authorization and Consent and Patent Indemnity provisions or what other action might be deemed appropriate.   

## 927.206 Refund of royalties.

## 927.206-1 General.

The clause at 952.227-9, Refund of Royalties, obligates the contractor to inform DOE of the payment of royalties pertaining to the use of intellectual property, either patent or data related, in the performance of the contract. This information may result in identification of instances in which the Government already has a license for itself or others acting in its behalf or the right to sublicense others. Also, there may be pending antitrust actions or challenges to the validity of a patent or the proprietary nature of the data, or the contractor may be able to gain unrestricted access to the same data through other sources. In such situations the contractor may avoid the payment of a royalty in its entirety or may be charged a reduced royalty.   

## 927.206-2 Clause for refund of royalties.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 952.227-9, Refund of Royalties, in solicitations and contracts for experimental, research, developmental, or demonstration work or other solicitations and contracts in which the contracting officer believes royalties will have to be paid by the contractor or a subcontractor of any tier.   

## 927.207 Classified contracts.

## 927.207-1 General.

Unauthorized disclosure of classified subject matter, whether in a patent application or resulting from the issuance of a patent, may be a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, other laws relating to espionage and national security, and provisions of the proposed contract pertaining to disclosure of information.
#### § 993.92 Effect of termination or amendment.

Unless otherwise expressly provided by the Secretary, the termination of this subpart or of any regulation issued pursuant to this subpart, or the issuance of any amendment to either thereof, shall not (a) affect or waive any right, duty, obligation, or liability which shall have arisen or which may thereafter arise in connection with any provision of this subpart or any regulation issued under this subpart, or (b) release or extinguish any violation of this subpart or any regulation issued under this subpart, or (c) affect or impair any rights or remedies of the Secretary, or of any other person, with respect to such violation.
#### RODEN, Respondent, v. CO-OPERATIVE BLDG. BANK, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 12, 1906.)

Action by Walter A. Roden against the Co-Operative Building Bank, a domestic corporation.

No opinion. Motion denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          59,113
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   88,623
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,000
<INVENTORY>                                     16,137
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               170,920
<PP&E>                                          62,970
<DEPRECIATION>                                 160,685
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 647,995
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          131,837
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       509,250
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   647,995
<SALES>                                        665,595
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               665,595
<CGS>                                           55,531
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  651,441
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,693
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,154
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,154
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,154
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report of ChinaNet Online Holdings, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Handong Cheng, Chief Executive Officer (Principal 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, to my knowledge that:




(1)
            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 result of operations of the
      Company.






/s/ Handong
Cheng





Handong
Cheng


Chief
Executive Officer


(Principal
Executive Officer)


Date:
March 31,
2010
PART 44 –– SUBCONTRACTING POLICIES

AND PROCEDURES
Case 2:06-mj-00079-SRW Document 22 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 2:06-mj-00079-SRW Document 22-2 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 1 of 1
# Subpart 5148.1 - Policies and Procedures

**Parent topic:**Part 5148 - Value Engineering

## 5148.102 Policies.

(a)  The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology) has authority to exempt individual contracts, or specific classes of contracts, from including value engineering provisions as prescribed by FAR 48.201 and 48.202.  See Appendix GG for further delegation.

(b)  Refer to the Department of the Army Pamphlet 70–3, 11 March 2014, paragraph 6-14, which is available via the Internet at https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/p70_3.pdf. 

## 5148.104 Sharing arrangements.

### 5148.104-3 Sharing collateral savings.

(a)  The head of the contracting activity shall make the determination at FAR 48.104-3(a).  See Appendix GG for further delegation.
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 13 - 00082 - CV IN THE INTER

EST OF K.E. AND R.E. , CHILDREN On Appeal from the 47th District Court Armstrong County, Texas Trial Court No. 2374, Honorable Dan L. Schaap, Presiding



### June 6 , 2013 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. S.E., the father, appearing pro se, appeals the final order of the trial court in this parental - rights termination case. 1 M.E., the mother, also appeals. By letter of May 10, 2013, we notified the father of two matters pertaining to his appeal requiring immediate attention. First, the fil ing fee was unpaid. Second, the father’s notice of appeal was untimely although filed within the fifteen - day extension period authorized by appellate rule 26.3. Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. We granted the father ten days, on peril of dismissal, to pay the fili ng fee or file an affidavit of indigence and to

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 9.8(b) (use of initials or other alias to protect identity of minor in parental - rights termination cases).2

file a written explanation reasonably explaining the need for additional time to file his notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 26.3, 42.3(a) and (c); Kidd v. Paxton , 1 S.W.3d 309 (Tex.App. — Amarillo, 1999 , pet. denied). The father did not pay the filing fee or file an affidavit of indigence nor did he file a writing explaining the need for additional time to file his notice of appeal. Accordingly, the appeal of S.E. is dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 42 .3(a) and (c). The appeal of the mother remains pending. Per Curiam
#### In the Matter of B. McGeever, Appellant, v. James M. Power et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, and Frederick L. Sullivan et al., Respondents.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur— Stevens, P. J., Eager, Tilzer, McNally and Steuer, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 155 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 155

 Requiring the House of Representatives to take any legislative action 
 necessary to verify the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment as 
 part of the Constitution when the legislatures of an additional three 
               States ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 15, 2005

 Mr. Andrews (for himself, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Payne, Ms. Lee, Mr. Holt, 
Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Lantos, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Owens, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Van 
 Hollen, Ms. McKinney, Ms. Schakowsky, and Mr. Cummings) submitted the 
   following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Requiring the House of Representatives to take any legislative action 
 necessary to verify the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment as 
 part of the Constitution when the legislatures of an additional three 
               States ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.

    Resolved,  That, when the legislatures of an additional three 
States ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, the House of Representatives 
shall take any legislative action necessary to verify the ratification 
of the Equal Rights Amendment as part of the Constitution.
                                 <all>
```