alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1.892 Review of positions. Positions becoming vacant, unless excepted as provided by § 1.897, will be reviewed to determine the feasibility of converting them to part-time. Among the criteria which may be used when conducting this review are: ( a ) Mission requirements.
( b ) Workload.
( c ) Employment ceilings and budgetary considerations.
( d ) Availability of qualified applicants willing to work part time.
( e ) Other criteria based on local needs and circumstances.
(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 3402)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          23,922
<SECURITIES>                                    19,286
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,937
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (425)
<INVENTORY>                                     37,430
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               113,658
<PP&E>                                          13,817
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,694)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 120,973
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,338
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           208
<OTHER-SE>                                     101,361
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   120,873
<SALES>                                         35,914
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                37,595
<CGS>                                           30,276
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,486
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    19
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (382)<F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,409)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,631)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,778)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,778)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.13)
<FN>
<F1>Interest Income
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Gillespie *v.*The State.

*Carrying Concealed Weapon.*

(Decided April 4, 1912.

58 South. 680.)

*Carrying Concealed Weapon; Statute; Constitutionality.*— Section 2, Acts 1909, p. 258, is not invalid as violative of any constitutional right.

Appeal from Marengo Law and Equity Court.

Heard before Hon. E. J. Gilder.

Luke Gillespie was convicted of carrying a concealed pistol, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

L. R. Wilson, for appellant.

No brief reached the Reporter.

R. C. Brickell, Attorney General, and W, L. Martin,. Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

The demurrers were properly overruled, on the authority of *Tines v. The State,*58 South. 1038; *Isaiah v. The State,*58 South. 53.

PELHAM, J.

This is an appeal on the record, and the only question presented to the court is the constitutionality of section 2 of the act regulating the right to carry a pistol in this state. — Acts Sp. Sess. 1909, p. '258.

*112Defendant’s contention is not well taken. The act in question has been held not to be violative of the Constitution by the Supreme *Court.*—Jacob *Isaiah v. State,*58 South. 53, at present term.

Affirmed.
#### BROOKS-SCANLON CORPORATION v. THE UNITED STATES; THE UNITED STATES v. BROOKS-SCANLON CORPORATION

[58 C. Cls. 274; 265 U. S. 106]

Judgment against the United States in the court below for a portion of the amount1 claimed. On both ' parties’ appeal the judgment was reversed, and the Supreme Court decided:

Orders of the Emergency Fleet Corporation directed to a shipbuilder expropriated a vessel in process of construction under a contract between the builder and the plaintiff, together with the materials purchased by the builder for its completion, the benefits and advantages of payments made, and of plans; specifications, and prior inspection service provided, by the plaintiff, and placed the Fleet Corporation in the plaintiff’s shoes with respect to tlie past and future execution of the contract by the builder. The United- States thus obtained the ship early and the benefit of prices much lower than those prevailing at time of requisition.

*Held: (a)*That the plaintiff’s rights under the contract with the builder were taken.

(b) That the just compensation to which the plaintiff was entitled did not depend upon the title to the materials used in the construction, and was not to be gauged by the progress payments made, or by the compensation payable if the Government had merely canceled the contract; but was to be measured by the value of the plaintiff’s rights under the contract at the time of the taking.

(c) .Tust eompiensation is the sum which, considering all the. circumstances, uncertainties of the war, etc., probably could have been obtained for an assignment of the plaintiff’s rights under the contract, i. e., the sum that would in all probability result" from fair negotiations between an owner willing to sell and a purchaser desirous of buying.

(t?) The value of such ships at the time of requisition, the then probable value at the time fixed for delivery, the contract price, payments made and to be made, the time to elapse before completion and delivery, the possibility that, by reason of the Government’s activity in' controlling materials, the contractor might not have been able to complete the ship on time, *960loss of the. use of money to be sustained, other expenditures to be made between requisition and delivery — all should be given consideration in determining the plaintiff’s loss caused by the taking.

Value rather than replacement cost should be taken into account in ascertaining just compensation.

Mr. Justice Butler

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court May 12, 1924.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 188 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 188

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 17, 2007

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To provide a new effective date for the applicability of certain 
                provisions of law to Public Law 105-331.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
That notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the purposes of 
Public Law 105-331, the end of the 2-year

period specified in subparagraph (B) of section 5134(f)(1) of title 31, 
United States Code, shall be July 1, 2007. This section shall apply on 
and after December 31, 2006, as if the section had been enacted on such 
date.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 16, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
OFFICE OF THE AITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTtN 
Iioaarab1e.B. 1p. Shiteaara, Neroh 80, 1040, page 9 

i 

*The sarstlss are tiiozWor llablm for all 

tarsa oollwtea an6 for uhioh it la the wllwtw'r 

duty to l o%ouBt to tha sta ts a r 0ouatJr trwsury, 

ragardle8s ofr&ither the aolleotoroM.na that 

thq maoy ua8 rightfully ntalaable by him aa fees 

of oitloe or whather ho aabetrl~ it. 

mXndesa, it him beat s%lU t-6 it Ir th6 oolleotor'r duty to nwouat (and that hi* mrstfss uo 

liable 011 t?lr bon& it ha ulmuld fall to do so) in 

any usnt exoupt ubtwe lo&s ban bea! euatained by 

aot of Go6 or tte publie elaew. l l * 

-TrLera oan k 00 liabillttp oa the part of tha 

sUmties ar GUI oiiio8x’a borrd ditbout &ufa;tlt 01p 

the part of the pinoipie in regrird to thm duticre 

whiah thsy hats otmtsaotsd the% hr &mil dieabarge. 

To rendu thwt Liable, the sot owlainrd of mtat 

be a viol&ion of the oonbitloua (li tM bond. 

Their liabllitp is 8triatisslm.y juria; it oan net 

be e.xtenaod by lnplioatloa or ooxutruotion beyoad 

the terms of fhrlx oaatmotrc; an6 thmy muot be 

&van the benefit of ray doubt as To the plloonfno of 

the t*mRs 0r the bond . . .* 
Iionorabl% B. Y. iChitsacre, Maroh 20, 1940, Page 3 

AFPROVEDMAR 23, 1940 

(JzAd-4.w 

ATTOFL;GY Gli2ERAS OF TnA‘XAS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6322

DAVID WATKINS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JOSEPH P. SACCHET; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA00-2545-CCB)

Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 23, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney

General, Celia Anderson Davis, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

David Watkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2000) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. Watkins v. Sacchet, No. CA-00-2545-CCB (D. Md. filed Jan.

30, 2001, entered Jan. 31, 2001; filed and entered Feb. 12, 2001).

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
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2173 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2173

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize additional funding 
  for the Department of Veterans Affairs to increase the capacity for 
 provision of mental health services through contracts with community 
             mental health centers, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 3, 2007

    Mr. Rodriguez (for himself and Mrs. Napolitano) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize additional funding 
  for the Department of Veterans Affairs to increase the capacity for 
 provision of mental health services through contracts with community 
             mental health centers, 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. CONTRACTS WITH COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTERS FOR PROVISION 
              OF MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES.

    Section 1712A of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(j)(1) The Secretary may enter into a contract for the provision 
of mental health services under this section with a community mental 
health center that the Secretary determines qualified to provide such 
services.
    ``(2) There is authorized to be appropriated for the purpose of 
entering into such contracts under paragraph (1) $50,000,000 for each 
of fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32

Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer under 18
U.S.C. Section 1350

	I, Henry C. Pao, the chief executive officer and chief financial officer
of Supertex, Inc., a California corporation (the "Company"), certify pursuant to
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that to my
knowledge:

	(i)    the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period
ending December 31, 2003 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), whichever is applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and

	(ii)	the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: February 10, 2004				/s/ Henry C. Pao
						_____________________
						Henry C. Pao, Ph.D.
						Chief Executive Officer and
						Chief Financial Officer




The material contained in this Exhibit 32 is not deemed "filed" with the SEC
and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under
the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made
before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation
language contained in such filing.
§ 385.11 Royalty rates. ( a ) *Physical phonorecords and Permanent Downloads* — ( 1 ) *2024 rate.* For the year 2024 for every physical phonorecord and Permanent Download the Licensee makes and distributes or authorizes to be made and distributed, the royalty rate payable for each work embodied in the phonorecord or Permanent Download shall be either 12.4 cents or 2.38 cents per minute of playing time or fraction thereof, whichever amount is larger.
( 2 ) *Annual rate adjustment.* The Copyright Royalty Judges shall adjust the royalty rates in paragraph (a)(1) of this section each year to reflect any changes occurring in the cost of living as determined by the most recent Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (U.S. City Average, all items) (CPI-U) published by the Secretary of Labor before December 1 of the preceding year. The calculation of the rate for each year shall be cumulative based on a calculation of the percentage increase in the CPI-U from the CPI-U published in November, 2022 (the Base Rate) and shall be made according to the following formulas: for the per-work rate, (1 + (Cy−Base Rate)/Base Rate) × 12¢, rounded to the nearest tenth of a cent; for the per-minute rate, (1 + (Cy−Base Rate)/Base Rate) × 2.31¢, rounded to the nearest hundredth of a cent; where Cy is the CPI-U published by the Secretary of Labor before December 1 of the preceding year. The Judges shall publish notice of the adjusted fees in the Federal Register at least 25 days before January 1. The adjusted fees shall be effective on January 1.
( b ) *Ringtones.* For every Ringtone the Licensee makes and distributes or authorizes to be made and distributed, the royalty rate payable for each work embodied therein shall be 24 cents.
( c ) *Music Bundles.* For a Music Bundle, the royalty rate for each element of the Music Bundle shall be the rate required under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, as appropriate.
[84 FR 2031, Feb. 5, 2019, as amended at 84 FR 32316, July 8, 2019; 87 FR 76942, Dec. 16, 2022; 88 FR 86058, Dec. 12, 2023; 88 FR 88254, Dec. 21, 2023]
#### § 17.114 Submittal of claim for reimbursement.

The claim for reimbursement for personal effects damaged or destroyed will be submitted by the patient to the Director. The patient will separately list and evaluate each article with a notation as to its condition at the time of the fire, earthquake, or other natural disaster *i.e.*, whether new, worn, etc. The date of the fire, earthquake, or other natural disaster will be stated. It will be certified by a responsible official that each article listed was stored in a designated location at the time of loss by fire, earthquake, or other natural disaster or was in process of laundering. The patient will further state whether the loss of each article was complete or partial, permitting of some further use of the article. The responsible official will certify that the amount of reimbursement claimed on each article of personal effects is not in excess of the fair value thereof at time of loss. The certification will be prepared in triplicate, signed by the responsible officer who made it, and countersigned by the Director of the medical center. After the above papers have been secured, voucher will be prepared, signed, and certified, and forwarded to the Fiscal Officer for approval, payment to be made in accordance with fiscal procedure. The original list of property and certificate are to be attached to voucher.

[39 FR 1843, Jan. 15, 1974, as amended at 49 FR 5616, Feb. 14, 1984. Redesignated at 61 FR 21966, May 13, 1996, and further redesignated at 67 FR 35039, May 17, 2002]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Shelter
Properties VI Limited Partnership 1997 Third Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000730013
<NAME> SHELTER PROPERTIES VI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,629
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       28
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          51,694
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,084
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,471
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         26,940
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,060
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,471
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,751
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,459
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,858
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    634
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                634
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       634
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    14.84<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### § 11.128 Veteran dies without having filed application for final settlement.

If the veteran dies without having filed application for final settlement under the Adjusted Compensation Payment Act, 1936, and the certificate has not matured, payment will be made to the last designated beneficiary or, if no beneficiary, to his estate. If the certificate has matured, payment will be made to the veteran's estate regardless of any beneficiary designation. Payment of the amount due on a deceased veteran's certificate will be made only on an approved award based upon receipt in the Department of Veterans Affairs of an application properly executed by the person or persons entitled.
Brendan	O’Donnell

446	Mountaingate	Dr.

Springfield,	OR	97478

(928)	710-4280

PETITION	FOR	EXEMPTION	UNDER	SECTION	333

Good	Afternoon,	

I	am	writing	to	request	an	exemption	under	section	333	for	the	following	reasons:

Proposed	Operations:	I	would	like	to	provide	services	which	includes	aerial	

photography	and	videography.		This	exemption	would	include	the	ability	to	take	

aerial	photos	and	films	for	real	estate	companies,	wineries,	agricultural	companies	,	

local	news	outlets,	and	other	misc	projects	with	the	exception	of	closed	set	motion	

picture	films	and	television.

Public	Interest:	This	request	benefits	the	public	as	a	whole	by	providing	an	

opportunity	for	small	business	owners,	real	estate	agents,	and	others	who	wish	to	

document	their	land/property	or	service	using	the	latest	in	aerial	photography	

technology.	

Level	of	Safety:	I	believe	this	exemption	will	not	adversely	affect	the	safety	for	the	

following	reasons:

As	a	FAA	licensed	Airline	Transport	Pilot	and	Flight	Instructor,	as	well	as	

being	an	experienced	RC	operator,	I	am	intimately	aware	of	all	the	rules	and	

regulations	pertaining	to	the	National	Airspace	System.	I	truly	take	a	“Safety	First”	

approach	in	all	of	my	flight	activities	by	always	operating	in	wide	open	spaces,	

maintaining	an	awareness	to	my	surroundings	at	all	times,	and	always	using	a	safety	

spotter.		The	nature	of	why	I	would	be	using	this	exemption	would	be	in	the	confines	

of	current	safety	recommendations	including	always	maintaining	a	line	of	sight	with	

the	aerial	unit	and	limiting	operations	to	less	than	400’	agl.

Make/Model	of	Aircraft

DJI	Phantom	3	Professional

UAS	Certificate	Number	FA3CA9MYTH

The	DJI	Phantom	3	Professional	is	a	lightweight,	quadcopter	which	includes	

numerous	safety	features	that		increases	safety	as	much	as	possible.	This	

quadcopter	includes	the	ability	to	return	to	its’ “home	point”	if	signal	is	ever	lost	and	

constantly	updates	position	with	GPS.	

Thank	you	for	considering	my	request	for	Exemption.

Brendan	O’Donnell