alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
###### Editorial Note on Part 36

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 61 FR 7217, Feb. 27, 1996, and 86 FR 51275, Sept. 15, 2021.

#### § 36.4525 Requirement of a construction warranty.

Any commitment to make a direct loan and any approval of a direct loan application issued or made on or after May 2, 1955, shall, if the purpose of the loan is to finance the construction of a dwelling or farmhouse or to finance the purchase of a newly constructed dwelling, be subject to the express condition that the builder, seller, or the real party in interest in the transaction shall deliver to the veteran constructing or purchasing such dwelling with the aid of a direct loan a warranty, in the form prescribed by the Secretary, that the property has been completed in substantial conformity with the plans and specifications upon which the Secretary based the valuation of the property, including any modifications thereof, or changes or variations therein, approved in writing by the Secretary, and no direct loan shall be disbursed in full unless a copy of such warranty duly receipted by the purchaser is submitted to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

[20 FR 2463, Apr. 14, 1955, as amended at 46 FR 43676, Aug. 31, 1981]
Editorial Note on Part 51
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 51 appear at 74 FR 19432, Apr. 29, 2009.

§ 51.150 Physician services. A physician must personally approve in writing a recommendation that an individual be admitted to a facility. Each resident must remain under the care of a physician. ( a ) *Physician supervision.* The facility management must ensure that— ( 1 ) The medical care of each resident is supervised by a primary care physician;
( 2 ) Each resident's medical record lists the name of the resident's primary physician, and
( 3 ) Another physician supervises the medical care of residents when their primary physician is unavailable.
( b ) *Physician visits.* The physician must— ( 1 ) Review the resident's total program of care, including medications and treatments, at each visit required by paragraph (c) of this section;
( 2 ) Write, sign, and date progress notes at each visit; and
( 3 ) Sign and date all orders.
( c ) *Frequency of physician visits.* ( 1 ) The resident must be seen by the primary physician at least once every 30 days for the first 90 days after admission, and at least once every 60 days thereafter, or more frequently based on the condition of the resident.
( 2 ) A physician visit is considered timely if it occurs not later than 10 days after the date the visit was required.
( 3 ) Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(4) of this section, all required physician visits must be made by the physician personally.
( 4 ) At the option of the physician, required visits in the facility after the initial visit may alternate between personal visits by the physician and visits by a physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or clinical nurse specialist in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section.
( d ) *Availability of physicians for emergency care.* The facility management must provide or arrange for the provision of physician services 24 hours a day, 7 days per week, in case of an emergency.
( e ) *Physician delegation of tasks.* ( 1 ) Except as specified in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, a primary physician may delegate tasks to: ( i ) a certified physician assistant or a certified nurse practitioner, or
( ii ) a clinical nurse specialist who— ( A ) Is acting within the scope of practice as defined by State law; and
( B ) Is under the supervision of the physician. Note to paragraph ( e
):
An individual with experience in long term care is preferred.
( 2 ) The primary physician may not delegate a task when the regulations specify that the primary physician must perform it personally, or when the delegation is prohibited under State law or by the facility's own policies.
(The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection requirements in this section under control number 2900-0160) (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1710, 1741-1743)
[65 FR 968, Jan. 6, 2000, as amended at 74 FR 19434, Apr. 29, 2009]
```

[112th Congress Public Law 107]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 126 STAT. 328]]

Public Law 112-107
112th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
   500 East Whitestone Boulevard in Cedar Park, Texas, as the ``Army 
 Specialist Matthew Troy Morris Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: May 15, 
                          2012 -  [H.R. 298]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ARMY SPECIALIST MATTHEW TROY MORRIS POST OFFICE 
                              BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 500 East Whitestone Boulevard in Cedar Park, Texas, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Army Specialist Matthew Troy Morris Post 
Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Army 
Specialist Matthew Troy Morris Post Office Building''.

    Approved May 15, 2012.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 298:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 157 (2011):
                                    Nov. 14, considered and passed 
                                        House.
                                                        Vol. 158 (2012):
                                    Apr. 26, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.

                                  <all>
```
1

The Honorable Patrick A. Conmy, United States District Judge for the District

of North Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-1806

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Joseph Matthew Deveraux, also known * District of North Dakota.

as Joe Deveraux, also known as *

Joseph Miles Followstheroad, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: October 2, 2001

 Filed: October 3, 2001 

___________

Before HANSEN, FAGG, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Joseph Deveraux guilty of three counts of aggravated sexual

abuse of a child under the age of twelve, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and

2241(c), and five counts of sexual abuse of a minor between the ages of twelve and

sixteen, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 2243(a). The district court1

 sentenced

him to 235 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release, and denied his
-2-

subsequent Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 motion for a new trial. Deveraux

appeals the denial of his Rule 33 motion.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the

motion, see United States v. Zuazo, 243 F.3d 428, 431 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of

review), or in denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing. See United States

v. Provost, 969 F.2d 617, 619-20 (8th Cir. 1992) (standard of review), cert. denied,

506 U.S. 1056 (1993). See United States v. Miner, 131 F.3d 1271, 1273-74 (8th Cir.

1997) (stating that courts view recantations “with suspicion,” particularly in childsexual-abuse cases, “‘where recantation is a recurring phenomenon’ such as ‘when

family members are involved and the child has feelings of guilt or the family

members seek to influence the child to change her story’”) (citation omitted).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: CAROLINA MAYORGA

,

Relator. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 7

- 00 15 8

- C V

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

IN HABEAS CORPUS

O R D E R

The Court has before it Relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for

temporary relief. Relator is currently confined in the El Paso County J ail pursuant to a contempt

order issued by the 388 th District Court of El Paso County, Texas in trial court cause number

2012DCM01701 . The motion for temporary relief is GRANTED. Pending this Court’s final

resolution of Relator’s petition on the merits and until further order of this Court, it is ORDERED

that Relator, Carolina Mayor ga , be rele ased from the custody of the Sheriff of El Paso County

only upon h er posting a personal recognizance bond in the amount of $ 5,000 .00

.

I T IS SO ORDERED this 1 9 th day of July , 201 7

.

PER CURI AM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
#### Matter of the Probate of the Lost Will and Testament of Mary Cosgrove, Deceased.

(Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

May, 1900.)

1. Lost will — Accounting for loss.

Where the tenor and due execution of a will are properly proved and the executor to whom it was delivered by the testatrix for safekeeping testifies to continuous custody of it, the subsequent loss of it, his search therefor and his failure to find it, it is to be inferred that the will existed when the testatrix died or was fraudulently destroyed in her lifetime, and it therefore is entitled to probate.

8. Same — Declarations of testatrix rebutting presumption of revocation.

Declarations of the testatrix made about a week before her death in which she spoke of the will as being in the custody of the executor are competent to rebut any inference of revocation arising from the loss of the will.

Proceedings upon probate of a will.

*423Daniel J. Cushing, for proponent.

George H. Starr, special guardian, for contestants.

Thomas, S.

The existence of the will of the testatrix, its due execution and its provisions, were clearly and distinctly proved in the manner required hy law. It was also shown hy two disinterested witnesses that the paper was, immediately after its execution, delivered by the decedent to the executor named in it, who was also the residuary legatee, for safe keeping, and there is no evidence that it ever subsequently came into her possession. On the contrary, the evidence is that, within about a week before her death, she spoke of the will being in the custody of the executor, and expressed satisfaction with its provisions. The testimony of the executor is that he placed the document with certain of her valuable papers; but he moved his place of residence and supposed that the papers were also moved, and on searching for the will after the death of the decedent he failed to find it. These facts are quite similar to those in Schultz v. Schultz, 35 N. Y. 653, and upon the authority of that case they require the inference that the will was in existence at the time of the death of the testatrix, or was fraudulently destroyed in her lifetime, within the meaning of those words as used in section 1865 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The declarations of the testatrix to the effect that she believed the will to he still in the custody in which she had placed it, and that it was a valid and unrevoked testamentary document, were competent to rehut any inference of revocation arising from its loss. Betts v. Jackson, 6 Wend. 173, 187, 188; Matter of Marsh, 45 Hun, 107; Patterson v. Hickey, 32 Ga. 156; Matter of Johnson, 40 Conn. 587. Declarations to sustain an alleged revocation of a will shown to he in existence and uninjured, stand upon a different ground, and are governed hy a different rule. Matter of Marsh, 45 Hun, 107; Waterman v. Whitney, 11 N. Y. 157; Eighmy v. People, 79 id. 546, 558. The lost instrument, as proved, will he admitted to probate. . Costs to proponent and special guardian out of the estate.

Probate decreed. Costs to proponent and special guardian.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Paul C. Honda, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Honda Auto Receivables 2020-2 Owner Trust (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);


2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;


3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;


4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and


5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.


In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party:  Citibank, N.A..

Date:  June 16, 2023



|                                                     | 
|---------------------------------------------------- | 
|/s/ Paul C. Honda                                    | 
|Paul C. Honda                                        | 
|Vice President and Assistant Secretary               | 
|American Honda Finance Corporation                   | 
|(senior officer in charge of the servicing function) | 



---
#### ELECTRIC BOAT COMPANY v. UNITED STATES

[57 C. Cls. 497; 263 U. S. 621]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was *affirmed,*and the Supreme Court decided:

Where the United States, without disclosure 'to it of the scope of an application for patent, obtained by a contract with the applicant a license, at certain rates, to manufacture and use the devices covered hy the application and was later sued by the licen-sor for its use of a device procured from another, which the licensor claimed came -within his application, and subsequent patent, *held:*(ft) That the Government was not estopped from *955and circumstances, tliat tile contract was not intended by the parties to apply to the device so used, and (6) that a judgment of the Court of Claims, so limiting the contract, upon facts found, was not erroneous as a matter of law.

Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court January 28, 1924.
#### Anna Shapiro et al., Respondents, *v.*Barnet Goldberg, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, seventh district, borough of Manhattan.

Leon Burkes, for appellant

L. Levene, for respondents.

*Per Guriam.*

The marshal’s return completely ignores the requirements of sections 1321 and 1326 of the Consolidation Act.

The mere mailing of the summons and attachment is ineffectual without posting copies of the same on the door of defendant’s residence; and where such service is made the return must recite the reasons for not making personal service. The summons not having been properly served the court never acquired jurisdiction, and the judgment must he reversed.

Present: Beekmah, P. J., Giegebioh and O’Gobmah, JJ.

Judgment reversed, with costs.
§ 21.7802 Finality of decisions. ( a ) *Agency decisions generally are binding.* The decision of the VA facility of original jurisdiction on which an action is based— ( 1 ) Will be final,
( 2 ) Will be binding upon all facilities of VA as to conclusions based on evidence on file at that time, and
( 3 ) Will not be subject to revision on the same factual grounds except by duly constituted appellate authorities or except as provided in § 21.7803. (See §§ 19.192 and 19.193 of this chapter). (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 511)
( b ) *Decisions of an Activity within the VA.* Current determinations of pertinent elements of eligibility for a program of education made by a VA adjudicative activity by application of the same criteria and based on the same facts are binding one upon the other in the absence of clear and unmistakable error. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 511)
( c ) *Determinations of satisfactory participation.* A determination made by a competent military or naval authority or by the Coast Guard as to whether or not an individual is participating satisfactorily in required training as a member of the Selected Reserve is binding upon VA.
(Authority: 10 U.S.C. 16134; Pub. L. 98-525)
[53 FR 34740, Sept. 8, 1988, as amended at 61 FR 29483, June 11, 1996]
§ 7.4 The premium. The term premium as defined under 50 U.S.C. app. 540(b) shall include membership dues and assessments in an association. ( a ) The premium on a policy will be calculated on an annual basis, and if the annual premium is not stated on the policy, the insurer will make a calculation of the premiums for payment in advance and discounted at not less than 31 ⁄ 2 percent, subject to approval by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
( b ) Premiums will not be guaranteed for benefits additional to the primary death benefit if, when combined with the amount of the primary death benefit, the total benefit would result in a payment in excess of $10,000 or if liability for such benefits is excluded or restricted by military service or any activity which the insured may be called upon to perform in connection with military service. In the event that premiums for the primary and additional benefits are not separable under the terms of the policy the entire policy will be guaranteed, if the policy is otherwise eligible for protection under the law.
[13 FR 7103, Nov. 27, 1948. Redesignated and amended at 61 FR 29026, June 7, 1996]
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2209 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2209

To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to add clementines to the list 
of fruits and vegetables subject to minimum quality import requirements 
                issued by the Secretary of Agriculture.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 8, 2007

 Mr. Cardoza (for himself, Mr. Nunes, Mr. McCarthy of California, and 
  Mr. Costa) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and 
 Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
   each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
                jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act to add clementines to the list 
of fruits and vegetables subject to minimum quality import requirements 
                issued by the Secretary of Agriculture.

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

SECTION 1. QUALITY REQUIREMENTS FOR CLEMENTINES.

    Section 8e(a) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608e-
1(a)), reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural Marketing 
Agreement Act of 1937, is amended in the first sentence by inserting 
after ``nectarines,'' the following: ``clementines,''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 22, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 48170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22901]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

48 CFR Part 205


Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Provision of 
Information to Cooperative Agreement Holders

CFR Correction

    In Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 2 (Parts 
201 to 299), revised as of October 1, 2008, on page 34, in section 
205.470, remove ``$100,000,000'' and add ``$1,000,000'' in its place.
[FR Doc. E9-22901 Filed 9-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE MOST RECENT QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM
10-Q OF
RESEARCH FRONTIERS INCORPORATED FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       4,506,419
<SECURITIES>                                 2,858,713
<RECEIVABLES>                                  100,980
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,535,058
<PP&E>                                         241,187
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,799,999
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          252,728
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    11,003,468
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,799,999
<SALES>                                         78,125
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               483,029
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,453,945
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,970,916)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,970,916)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.18)
        

</TABLE>