alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 235 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 235

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To allow for the renegotiation of the payment schedule of contracts 
  between the Secretary of the Interior and the Redwood Valley County 
                Water District, 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. RENEGOTIATION OF PAYMENT SCHEDULE.

    Section 15 of Public Law 100-516 (102 Stat. 2573) is amended as 
follows:
            (1) By amending paragraph (2) of subsection (a) to read as 
        follows:
            ``(2) If, as of January 1, 2006, the Secretary of the 
        Interior and the Redwood Valley County Water District have not 
        renegotiated the schedule of payment, the District may enter 
        into such additional non-Federal obligations as are necessary 
        to finance procurement of dedicated water rights and 
        improvements necessary to store and convey those rights to 
        provide for the District's water needs. The Secretary shall 
        reschedule the payments due under loans numbered 14-06-200-
        8423A and 14-06-200-8423A Amendatory and said payments shall 
        commence when such additional obligations have been financially 
        satisfied by the District. The date of the initial payment owed 
        by the District to the United States shall be regarded as the 
        start of the District's repayment period and the time upon 
        which any interest shall first be computed and assessed under 
        section 5 of the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 (43 

U.S.C. 422a et seq.).''.
            (2) By striking subsection (c).

            Passed the House of Representatives February 6, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 235

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To allow for the renegotiation of the payment schedule of contracts 
  between the Secretary of the Interior and the Redwood Valley County 
                Water District, and for other purposes.
```
§ 423.552 Novation agreement requirements. ( a ) *Conditions for CMS approval of a novation agreement.* CMS approves a novation agreement if the following conditions are met: ( 1 ) *Advance notification.* The PDP sponsor notifies CMS at least 60 days before the date of the proposed change of ownership. The PDP sponsor also provides CMS with updated financial information and a discussion of the financial and solvency impact of the change of ownership on the surviving organization.
( 2 ) *Advance submittal of agreement.* The PDP sponsor submits to CMS, at least 30 days before the proposed change of ownership date, three signed copies of the novation agreement containing the provisions specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and one copy of other relevant documents required by CMS.
( 3 ) *CMS's determination.* When reviewing a novation agreement, CMS makes a determination concerning the following: ( i ) The proposed new owner is in fact a successor in interest to the contract.
( ii ) Recognition of the new owner as a successor in interest to the contract is in the best interest of the Medicare program.
( iii ) The successor organization meets the requirements to qualify as a PDP sponsor under subpart K of this part.
( b ) *Provisions of a novation agreement.* A valid novation agreement requires the following: ( 1 ) *Assumption of contract obligations.* The new owner must assume all obligations under the contract.
( 2 ) *Waiver of right to reimbursement.* The previous owner must waive its rights to reimbursement for covered services furnished during the rest of the current contract period.
( 3 ) *Guarantee of performance.* The previous owner must— ( i ) Guarantee performance of the contract by the new owner during the contract period; or
( ii ) Post a performance bond that is satisfactory to CMS.
( 4 ) *Records access.* The previous owner must agree to make its books and records and other necessary information available to the new owner and to CMS to permit an accurate determination of costs for the final settlement of the contract period.
January 15, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DAVID AUSTIN PRICE, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00487-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Exhibit 10.2

                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                                       TO
                     PATENT AND TECHNOLOGY LICENSE AGREEMENT

         This  AMENDMENT  NO.  1  ("AMENDMENT")  is made  as of this  3rd day of
October,  2003  between U.S.  Global  Nanospace,  Inc., a Delaware  corporation,
having a principal  place of business at 2533 North Carson,  Suite 5107,  Carson
City,  Nevada  89706  ("LICENSEE")  and TIAX LLC, a Delaware  limited  liability
company  having  a  principal  place  of  business  located  at 15  Acorn  Park,
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140 ("LICENSOR").

                                    RECITALS

         A. LICENSOR and LICENSEE are parties to a certain PATENT AND TECHNOLOGY
LICENSE  AGREEMENT  entered  into  by the  parties  dated  July  25,  2003  (the
"AGREEMENT"),  pursuant to which  LICENSOR  has  licensed  to  LICENSEE  certain
intellectual  property,  including  patents.  All capitalized terms used in this
AMENDMENT  which are defined in the AGREEMENT and not otherwise  defined in this
AMENDMENT shall have the meanings given in the AGREEMENT.

         B. LICENSOR and LICENSEE  desire to enter into this  AMENDMENT in order
to amend the AGREEMENT in certain respects as provided below.

                             STATEMENT OF AMENDMENT

         For good and valuable  consideration,  the receipt and  sufficiency  of
which are hereby acknowledged, LICENSOR and LICENSEE hereby agree as follows:

         1. Section  4.1(a).  Section  4.1(a) of the AGREEMENT is deleted in its
entirety and the following substituted in place thereof:

    "(a)  LICENSOR  shall  pay to  LICENSEE  (i) a  licensee  fee  equal to
$______________,  which shall be paid to LICENSOR no later than August 25, 2003;
and (ii) all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by LICENSOR in enforcing
and  maintaining  PATENT RIGHTS after the EFFECTIVE DATE, for so long as, and in
such  countries  as, this  AGREEMENT  remains in effect.  LICENSOR  will invoice
LICENSEE  for all such  expenses  and on a  quarterly  basis,  and the  invoiced
amounts will be due and payable by LICENSEE  within thirty (30) days of invoice;
and"

         2. No  Waiver.  Nothing  herein  shall be deemed  to waive  any  rights
LICENSOR may have under the AGREEMENT.



<PAGE>

         3. Continuing  Effect. As amended by this AMENDMENT,  the provisions of
the Lease remain in full force and effect.



IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  parties  hereto  have  caused  their  duly authorized
representatives to execute this AGREEMENT.


 U.S. GLOBAL NANOSPACE, INC.               TIAX LLC

 By                                        By
   ---------------------------------         --------------------------------
 Name: John D. Robinson                    Name: John M. Collins
 Title: Chairman                           Title: Executive Vice President

 Date:               , 2003                  Date:               , 2003
      ---------------                             ---------------
Exhibit
      32.2




**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 Bel Fuse Inc (the "Company") on Form
      10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission (the "Report"), I, Colin Dunn, Vice President of Finance of the
      Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
      The
      Report 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 consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented
      and consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented.





Dated:
      August 9, 2007


BY:
                  /s/
                    Colin DunnColin
                            Dunn, Vice President ofFinance
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 ofMaryland, 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 findno 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
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 42.224 Discovery.

Notwithstanding the discovery provisions of subpart A:

(a) Requests for additional discovery may be granted upon a showing of good cause as to why the discovery is needed; and

(b) Discovery is limited to evidence directly related to factual assertions advanced by either party in the proceeding.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

_~i ,., ~. . 

i,.’ ;i. .,~ *i
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
              This schedule    contains    summary    financial
              information  extracted from Atlantic City Boardwalk
              Associates,  L.P.'s form 10-Q for the quarter ended
              June 30, 1999 and is qualified in it's  entirety by
              reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000730408
<NAME>                        Atlantic City Boardwalk Associates, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                           1
<CURRENCY>                                            US>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                        1
<CASH>                                           610,000
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,276,000
<PP&E>                                       184,513,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               113,562,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               102,643,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,688,000
<BONDS>                                       79,599,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                    18,356,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 102,643,000
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              12,192,000
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5,576,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,936,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             5,733,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (2,053,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (2,053,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (2,053,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Bel Fuse Inc (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Report"), I, Colin Dunn, Vice President of Finance of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report 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 consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates
presented and consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods
presented.

Dated: May 11, 2004

                                         BY:  /s/ Colin Dunn
                                              ----------------------------------
                                               Colin Dunn, Vice President of
                                               Finance
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

§ 3.2130 Will VA accept a signature by mark or thumbprint? VA will accept signatures by mark or thumbprint if: ( a ) They are witnessed by two people who sign their names and give their addresses, or
( b ) They are witnessed by an accredited agent, attorney, or service organization representative, or
( c ) They are certified by a notary public or any other person having the authority to administer oaths for general purposes, or
( d ) They are certified by a VA employee who has been delegated authority by the Secretary under 38 CFR 2.3.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5101).
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  1.
    
    this Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements
of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in this Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2006 fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Thor Industries, Inc.
 Date: May 30, 2006
    
    /s/
    Walter L. BennettWalter L. BennettExecutive Vice President,Secretary and Chief Financial Officer(principal financial and accounting officer)
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION* IN THE

OF MARYLAND 200 Harry S. Truman Parkway, Suite 300 • COURT OF APPEALS Annapolis, MD 21401
• OF MARYLAND Petitioner

V.
• Misc. Docket AG GARY STEWART PEICLO • No. 105
• September Term, 2014 Respondent

ORDER This Court having considered the Joint Petition for Indefinite Suspension by Consent, with Right to Apply for Reinstatement After Thirty (30) Days, filed herein pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-772, it is this 9th day of June , 2015, ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that Gary Stewart Peklo be, and he is hereby, indefinitely suspended by consent from the practice of law in the State of Maryland, effective thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, for violating Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct 1.7(a)(2), 1.15(a) and 8.4(d), and it is further ORDERED, that the Respondent may apply for reinstatement after thirty (30) days from the date this Order is entered, conditioned upon Respondent having repaid the $30,600 to the Lentz Estate, and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of Gary Stewart Peklo from the register of attorneys in this Court, and shall certify that fact to the Client Protection Fund of Maryland and the clerks of all judicial tribunals in this State pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-772(d).

/s/ Glenn T. Harrell, Jr. Senior Judge
§ 18.435 Evaluation and placement. ( a ) *Preplacement evaluation.* A recipient that operates a public elementary or secondary education program or activity shall conduct an evaluation of any qualified person who, because of handicap, needs or is believed to need special education or related services before taking any action concerning the initial placement of the person in regular or program special education and any subsequent change in placement.
( b ) *Evaluation procedures.* Elementary, secondary, and adult education programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance shall establish standards and procedures for the evaluation and placement of persons who, because of handicap, need or are believed to need special education or related services which ensure that: ( 1 ) Tests and other evaluation materials have been validated for the specific purpose for which they are used and are administered by trained personnel in conformance with the instructions provided by their producer;
( 2 ) Tests and other evaluation materials include those tailored to assess specific areas of educational need and not merely those which are designed to provide a single general intelligence quotient; and
( 3 ) Tests are selected and administered to best ensure that, when a test is administered to a student with impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills, the test results accurately reflect the student's aptitude or achievement level or whatever other factor the test purports to measure, rather than reflect the student's impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills (except where those skills are the factors that the test purports to measure.)
( c ) *Placement procedures.* In interpreting evaluation data and in making placement decisions, a recipient shall: ( 1 ) Draw upon information from a variety of sources, including aptitude and achievement tests, teacher recommendations, physical condition, social or cultural background and adaptive behavior;
( 2 ) Establish procedures to ensure that information obtained from all sources is documented and carefully considered;
( 3 ) Ensure that the placement decision is made by a group of persons, including persons knowledgeable about the student, the meaning of the evaluation data and the placement options; and
( 4 ) Ensure that the placement decision is made in accordance with § 18.434.
( d ) *Reevaluation.* A recipient to which this section applies shall establish procedures, in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, for periodic reevaluation of students who have been provided special education and related services. A reevaluation procedure consistent with the Education for the Handicapped Act is one means of meeting this requirement.
[45 FR 63268, Sept. 24, 1980, as amended at 68 FR 51370, Aug. 26, 2003]