alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1128.715 Recipient obligations for license fees and royalties. ( a ) *Policy.* Unless a statute or program regulation adopted in the Code of Federal Regulations after opportunity for public comment provides otherwise, a DoD Component's general terms and conditions may not specify that recipients have obligations to the Federal Government with respect to program income from license fees and royalties for patents or patent applications, copyrights, trademarks, or inventions produced under DoD awards.
( b ) *Award terms and conditions* — ( 1 ) *General.* Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, a DoD Component's general terms and conditions must implement the policy in paragraph (a) of this section by including the wording provided in appendix G to this part as Section D of FMS Article VII.
( 2 ) *Exception.* If a DoD Component has a statutory or regulatory basis for establishing recipient obligations for the license fees and royalties described in paragraph (a) of this section, it may reserve Section D of FMS Article VII in its general terms and conditions.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Velasquez Restrepo, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on June 22, 1979, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. (See *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders, 52*AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Birns, J. P., Sullivan, Markewich, Silverman and Yesawich, JJ.
§ 1120.510 Sources of administrative requirements. The source of administrative requirements is: ( a ) Subchapter D of this chapter for cost-type grant and cooperative agreement awards to institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, States, local governments, and Indian tribes. Subchapter D provides a standard set of articles into which a DoD Component organizes the administrative requirements. It also provides standard wording for the general terms and conditions in those articles, as explained in the overview of subchapter D in 2 CFR part 1126.
( b ) 32 CFR part 34 for grant and cooperative agreement awards to for-profit entities. That part of the DoDGARs specifies the administrative requirements for awards to those entities but does not provide standard articles or terms and conditions.
###### Editorial Note on Part 180

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 180 appear at 79 FR 75879, Dec. 19, 2014.

#### § 180.900 Adequate evidence.

*Adequate evidence* means information sufficient to support the reasonable belief that a particular act or omission has occurred.
#### § 182.625 Criminal drug statute.

Criminal drug statute means a Federal or non-Federal criminal statute involving the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, use, or possession of any controlled substance.
PGI 237.102-79 Private sector notification

requirements in support of in-sourcing

actions.

Click here for OUSD(RFM) memorandum, “Private Sector Notification Requirements in Support of

In-sourcing Actions,” dated January 29, 2013.

Parent topic: PGI 237.102 Policy.
**Exhibit
        32**
  **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 Quarterly Report of American Resources and Development
        Company. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007,
        as
        filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
        "Report"), I, Tom Stamos, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted
        pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
        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/ **TOM
        STAMOS**
 
 **Tom
        Stamos**
 President
        and Principal Accounting Officer
 December
          27, 2007
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
        authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
        in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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. The foregoing
        certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-QSB solely pursuant
        to
        section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
        section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being
        filed
        as part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.
#### INTERNATIONAL TEXT-BOOK CO., Appellant, v. HOCKEBORN, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 18, 1914.)

Action by the International Text-Book Company against Paul F. Hockeborn.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
MAKE YOUR EXPERIENCE PAPERLESS — FILE ELECTRONICALLY.

For more information, go to http://www.efast.dol.gov/software.html

IRS

Department of the Treasury

Internal Revenue Service

www.irs.gov

Publication 5500 (2003)

Catalog Number 37378R

Remember To File Your 2003 Form 5500 or 5500-EZ

ERISA Filing Acceptance System
The Department of Labor (DOL), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and

the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) are sending you this

postcard as a reminder that you may be required to file a Form 5500 or

Form 5500-EZ for your employee benefit plan for Plan Year 2003 . . . and

to provide information on how to easily get the forms you need.
Go Paperless — File Electronically

We are working to make the ERISA Filing Acceptance System (EFAST) a paperless electronic filing system to receive and process Forms 5500 and 5500-EZ. Most of you have

taken the first step by using computers to prepare your Form 5500 or 5500-EZ. Now it’s

time to take the next step and file electronically.

In an effort to save the yearly cost of printing and mailing paper packages of Forms

5500 and 5500-EZ to filers who don’t use them, we are replacing the automatic mail-out

packages with this postcard. Filers who want to complete the official governmentproduced paper forms can order the paper forms and instructions by calling 1-800-TAXFORM (1-800-829-3676) anytime.

Information on electronic filing options using and other helpful information on

filing your Form 5500 or 5500-EZ is available at http://www.efast.dol.gov.
PRSTD STD

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

IRS

PERMIT NO. G-48

Mailing Label

DOL - EBSA

200 Constitution Ave., NW

Room N-5459

Washington, DC 20210

Official Business

Penalty For Private Use, $300
#### §§ 1402.104-1402.111 [Reserved]
§ 745.108 IRB functions and operations. ( a ) In order to fulfill the requirements of this policy each IRB shall: ( 1 ) Have access to meeting space and sufficient staff to support the IRB's review and recordkeeping duties;
( 2 ) Prepare and maintain a current list of the IRB members identified by name; earned degrees; representative capacity; indications of experience such as board certifications or licenses sufficient to describe each member's chief anticipated contributions to IRB deliberations; and any employment or other relationship between each member and the institution, for example, full-time employee, part-time employee, member of governing panel or board, stockholder, paid or unpaid consultant;
( 3 ) Establish and follow written procedures for: ( i ) Conducting its initial and continuing review of research and for reporting its findings and actions to the investigator and the institution;
( ii ) Determining which projects require review more often than annually and which projects need verification from sources other than the investigators that no material changes have occurred since previous IRB review; and
( iii ) Ensuring prompt reporting to the IRB of proposed changes in a research activity, and for ensuring that investigators will conduct the research activity in accordance with the terms of the IRB approval until any proposed changes have been reviewed and approved by the IRB, except when necessary to eliminate apparent immediate hazards to the subject.
( 4 ) Establish and follow written procedures for ensuring prompt reporting to the IRB; appropriate institutional officials; the department or agency head; and the Office for Human Research Protections, HHS, or any successor office, or the equivalent office within the appropriate Federal department or agency of ( i ) Any unanticipated problems involving risks to subjects or others or any serious or continuing noncompliance with this policy or the requirements or determinations of the IRB; and
( ii ) Any suspension or termination of IRB approval.
( b ) Except when an expedited review procedure is used (as described in § 745.110), an IRB must review proposed research at convened meetings at which a majority of the members of the IRB are present, including at least one member whose primary concerns are in nonscientific areas. In order for the research to be approved, it shall receive the approval of a majority of those members present at the meeting.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control Number 0990-0260)
# L_2006189EN.01002701.xml

| 12.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 189/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 189/27

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2319/89 of 28 July 1989 on minimum quality requirements for Williams and Rocha pears in syrup and in natural fruit juice eligible for the production aid scheme

(
  Official Journal of the European Communities L 220 of 29 July 1989
  )

On page 52 in Article 4(3)(e), first sentence:

for:

| ‘(e) | “core material” means the seed cell or parts thereof attached to the fruit, with or without seeds.’ |
| --- | --- |

‘(e)

“core material” means the seed cell or parts thereof attached to the fruit, with or without seeds.’

read:

| ‘(e) | “core material” means the seed cell or parts thereof whether or not attached to the fruit, with or without seeds.’ |
| --- | --- |

‘(e)

“core material” means the seed cell or parts thereof whether or not attached to the fruit, with or without seeds.’

---
§ 5.415 Access to course offerings. ( a ) A recipient shall not provide any course or otherwise carry out any of its education program or activity separately on the basis of sex, or require or refuse participation therein by any of its students on such basis, including health, physical education, industrial, business, vocational, technical, home economics, music, and adult education courses.
( b ) ( 1 ) With respect to classes and activities in physical education at the elementary school level, the recipient shall comply fully with this section as expeditiously as possible but in no event later than one year from September 29, 2000. With respect to physical education classes and activities at the secondary and post-secondary levels, the recipient shall comply fully with this section as expeditiously as possible but in no event later than three years from September 29, 2000.
( 2 ) This section does not prohibit grouping of students in physical education classes and activities by ability as assessed by objective standards of individual performance developed and applied without regard to sex.
( 3 ) This section does not prohibit separation of students by sex within physical education classes or activities during participation in wrestling, boxing, rugby, ice hockey, football, basketball, and other sports the purpose or major activity of which involves bodily contact.
( 4 ) Where use of a single standard of measuring skill or progress in a physical education class has an adverse effect on members of one sex, the recipient shall use appropriate standards that do not have such effect.
( 5 ) Portions of classes in elementary and secondary schools, or portions of education programs or activities, that deal exclusively with human sexuality may be conducted in separate sessions for boys and girls.
( 6 ) Recipients may make requirements based on vocal range or quality that may result in a chorus or choruses of one or predominantly one sex.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1356

RODNEY E. HAYS,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

TOWN OF GAULEY BRIDGE, WEST VIRGINIA, a West Virginia 

Municipal Corporation; WILLIAM KINCAID, individually and in 

his official capacity as Judge of the Gauley Bridge 

Municipal Court; SEAN WHIPKEY, individually and in his 

official capacity as a Town of Gauley Bridge Officer; HEATH 

WHIPKEY, individually and in his official capacity as a 

Town of Gauley Bridge Police Officer; CHARLES BURKHAMER, 

individually and in his official capacity as a Town of 

Gauley Bridge Police Officer,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, 

Jr., District Judge. (2:09-cv-01272)

Submitted: July 21, 2011 Decided: July 25, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney E. Hays, Appellant Pro Se. Vaughn Sizemore, BAILEY & 

WYANT, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Rodney E. Hays seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order granting partial summary judgment to defendants on his 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. This court may exercise 

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), 

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. 

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Hays seeks 

to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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
Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of BNP Residential Properties, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Philip
S. Payne, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

         (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) 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/ Philip S. Payne
Philip S. Payne
Chief Financial Officer
August 12, 2002



                                       28
<PAGE>
#### LOCOMOBILE CO. v. NICHOLS.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 31, 1914.)

Action by the Locomobile Company against Edwin Nichols.

No opinion. Motion granted. Order filed. See, also, 150 N. Y. Supp. 1093.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Quarterly Report of Calgon Carbon Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, John S. Stanik, 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:

(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 for the periods
presented therein.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ John S. Stanik     
|Chief Executive Officer
|March 27, 2006         

This certification accompanies this 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.



31
## SERVE D JUN E 1,201 0 U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N '

- ' ' ^ J r -i^"^' ' OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C IN TH E MATTE RO F AMERICA N AIRLINES , INC . FA A DOCKE T NO . CP10SW000 6 (Civi l Penalty Action ) DMSNo . FAA-2010-053 2

NOTIC E O FASSIGNMEN T O FPROCEEDIN G Thi s proceedin g (heretofore designateda s Cas e No . 2008SW210058 ) ha s bee n assigne d t o Administrativ e La w Judg e Richar dC . Goodwin . Al l future pleading s an dothe r communication s regardin g thi s proceedin g shal l b e serve do n th e Judge , th e FA A Hearin g Docket , an dth e othe r

person s o n th e attache dServic e List .

lonni e A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e Lawflud ; Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFA A Docke t No . CP10SW000 6 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L& ON E COP Y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON E COP Y Evan P . Singer , Respondent' s Counse l JONE S DA Y 272 7 NorthHarwoo dStree t Dallas , TX 75201-151 5 TEL : 214-969-502 1 FAX : 214-969-510 0 Yoland aAyal aBemal , Complainant' s Counse l Attorney , Safet

y Enforcemen t

Branc h Southwes t

Region , ASW-7E 3 Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 260 1 MeachamBlvd. , Roo m66 3 Fort Worth , T X 7613 7 TEL : 817-222-507 0 FAX : 817-222-594 5 o r

509 2 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 New Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mE12-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Service wa

s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n person o r b y expeditedcourier , us e the following address : Federa l Aviatio n Administration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearing Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 .
§ 1500.5 Supersession. Effective December 26, 2014, this part supersedes the following regulations under Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations: ( a ) 40 CFR part 30, “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and other Non-profit Organizations.”
( b ) 40 CFR part 31, “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.”
[79 FR 76050, Dec. 19, 2014. Redesignated at 85 FR 61573, Sept. 30, 2020]
#### Charles H. Miller et al., as Trustees under the Will of Jane M. Miller, Deceased, Appellants, *v.*Fanny Harris, Respondent.

Reported below, 125 App. Div. 922.

(Submitted November 9, 1908;

decided November 17, 1908.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial *646department, entered in April, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at a Trial Term.

The motion was made upon the grounds that no question of law is involved and the only exceptions appearing in the record are frivolous.

*Ezekiel Fixman*for motion.

*Otto C. Wierum, Jr.,*opposed.

Motion denied, witli ten dollars costs.
#### James J. DUFFEY, Jr. and Maureen O. Duffey, Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee.

No. 81-2050.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted April 29, 1982.

Decided May 5, 1982.

*39James J. Duffey, Jr., pro se.

Glenn L. Archer, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael L. Paup, Ann Belanger Durney, Laurie A. Snyder, Attys., Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before LAY, Chief Judge, and BRIGHT and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

James Duffey appeals, pro se, from a decision of the United States Tax Court that certain funds paid to him by the University of Minnesota were not excludable income under section 117 of the Internal Revenue Code. 26 U.S.C. § 117. Duffey excluded $4,565 from his 1976 federal income tax return as a non-taxable fellowship grant. The Internal Revenue Service disallowed the deduction and assessed a deficiency against Duffey for that year. In a proceeding before the United States Tax Court it was held that the sum in question was not a fellowship grant within the meaning of section 117.

Duffey, at that time a graduate student, was paid $4,565 in connection with research duties performed for the Minnesota Research and Development Center (MRDC). It was Duffey’s task to gather empirical data from which a formula for the funding of vocational programs for the state’s schools could be developed for use by the state legislature. The project was funded by the Minnesota Department of Education and was initiated at the request of the state legislature.

Applying the primary purpose test, the tax court found that the payments were intended to compensate Duffey for services rendered. In reaching this conclusion the tax court noted that the projected use of the formula by the state legislature demonstrated that MRDC anticipated a more than incidental benefit from the research conducted by Duffey and that this constituted the necessary *quid pro quo*required under *Bingler v. Johnson,*394 U.S. 741, 751, 89 S.Ct. 1439, 1445, 22 L.Ed.2d 695 (1969).1

On appeal Duffey contends that the funds were paid primarily to enable him to participate in the research project as a learning experience leading to a doctorate.

The determination of whether the funds represent compensation or a fellowship grant is generally left to the trier of fact and will be reversed on appeal only where that determination is shown to be clearly erroneous. *See Leathers v. United States,*471 F.2d 856, 858 (8th Cir. 1972); *see also Mizell v. United States,*663 F.2d 772, 775 (8th Cir. 1981), *reh. denied*669 F.2d 552 (8th Cir. 1982). A review of the record here reveals ample support for the tax court findings. Accordingly the decision is affirmed.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

1

. There was additional testimony to indicate that Duffey would have been terminated had his work proved unsatisfactory.