alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 17.602 Eligibility. ( a ) To be eligible for a scholarship under this program an applicant must— ( 1 ) Be unconditionally accepted for enrollment or be enrolled as a full-time student in an accredited school located in a State;
( 2 ) Be pursuing a degree annually designated by the Secretary for participation in the Scholarship Program; (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7602(a)(1), 7612(b)(1))
( 3 ) Be in a discipline or program annually designated by the Secretary for participation in the Scholarship Program;
( 4 ) Be a citizen of the United States; and
( 5 ) Submit an application to participate in the Scholarship Program together with a signed contract.
( 6 ) *Clinical tours.* An applicant for a scholarship under the HPSP must agree to perform clinical tours while enrolled in the course of education or training for which the scholarship is provided. VA will determine the assignments and locations of the clinical tour. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7618(b))
( b ) To be eligible for a scholarship as a part-time student under this program, an applicant must satisfy requirements of paragraph (a) of this section and in addition must— ( 1 ) Be a full-time VA employee permanently assigned to a VA health care facility at the time of application and on the date when the scholarship is awarded;
( 2 ) Remain a VA employee for the duration of the scholarship award. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7612(c)(3)(B))
( c ) Any applicant who, at the time of application, owes a service obligation to any other entity to perform service after completion of the course of study is ineligible to receive a scholarship under the Department of Veterans Affairs Scholarship Program.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7602(b))
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2900-0793) [47 FR 10810, Mar. 12, 1982, as amended at 48 FR 37399, Aug. 18, 1983; 54 FR 28674, July 7, 1989; 78 FR 51070, Aug. 20, 2013; 89 FR 51446, June 18, 2024]
#### § 21.8100 Counseling.

An eligible child requesting or receiving services and assistance under this subpart will receive professional counseling by VR&E and other qualified VA staff members, and by contract counseling providers, as necessary, in a manner comparable to VA's provision of these services to veterans under the 38 U.S.C. chapter 31 program, as §§ 21.100 and 21.380 provide.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1803(c)(8), 1804(c), 1814)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0574

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

CHARLOTTE ANN WOLFCHILD,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including May 24, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 17 2023

04/17/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0574
**EXHIBIT 99.7**

​

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

​

In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of New Found Gold Corp. (the “Registrant”) on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael Kanevsky, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as enacted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

​
| (i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. 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. |
|------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

​

| ​                   | ​                 |      | ​ |
|---------------------------|-------------------------|--------------------------|---------|
| /s/Michael Kanevsky       | ​                 | ​                  |
| Name:                     | Michael Kanevsky        | ​                  | ​ |
| Title:                    | Chief Financial Officer | ​                  | ​ |
| ​                   | ​                 | ​                  | ​ |
| Date: June  30, 2022 | ​                 | ​                  |

​

----
1 The Honorable James S. Halpern, United States Tax Court. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 02-2286

___________ Charles Robert Schetzer, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * Tax Court. * Commissioner of Internal Revenue, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 3, 2002 Filed: December 23, 2002

___________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Charles Schetzer (Schetzer) appeals the tax court’s 1 decision affirming the Internal Revenue Service’s assessment of federal income tax deficiencies against him for the 1996 taxable year, and upholding 26 U.S.C. § 469(i) (allowing $25,000 offset against income for rental real estate activities) against Schetzer’s equal protection challenge.In support of his equal protection challenge, Schetzer argues, as he did below, that section 469(i) improperly favors those who rent real estate over persons, such as himself, who rent cars. We conclude Schetzer’s equal protection challenge is unavailing. See Regan v. Taxation With Representation , 461 U.S. 540, 547-48 (1983) (statutory classifications are valid if they bear rational relation to legitimate governmental purpose, unless statute interferes with fundamental right or employs suspect classification; burden is particularly high to overcome presumption of constitutionality of tax statute). Schetzer’s remaining arguments are either raised for the first time on appeal, are frivolous, or are not material to the issue of his tax liabilities. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# C_2009044EN.01S00301.xml

| 21.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                            5
<MULTIPLIER>                     1,000
                       
<S>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                   June-30-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<CASH>                           8,056
<SECURITIES>                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                   25,804
<ALLOWANCES>                       401
<INVENTORY>                     20,767
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                61,461
<PP&E>                          49,168
<DEPRECIATION>                  23,427
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  88,715
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           21,769
<BONDS>                              0      
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0
<PREFERRED>                          0
<COMMON>                           593
<OTHER-SE>                      63,286
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    88,715
<SALES>                         79,313
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   60,821
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                11,045
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 233
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  7,567
<INCOME-TAX>                     2,764
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              4,767
<DISCONTINUED>                  (7,129)    
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0
<CHANGES>                            0
<NET-INCOME>                    (2,362)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     (.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                     (.26)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1744

JENNEBAH S. VILLE, 

 Plaintiff – Appellant, 

 v. 

UNITED AIR LINES, INCORPORATED, Dulles Airport Virginia, 

 Defendant – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior 

District Judge. (1:07-cv-00900-TSE-TCB) 

Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 15, 2008 

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Jennebah S. Ville, Appellant Pro Se. Eric J. Janson, Michael 

Andrew Viccora, SEYFARTH & SHAW, LLP, Washington, D.C., for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Jennebah S. Ville appeals the district court’s order 

granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant, and 

dismissing with prejudice Ville’s 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e)-(e)17 

(2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Ville v. United Air Lines, Inc., No. 

1:07-00900-TSE-TCB (E.D. Va. filed June 23, 2008; entered 

June 24, 2008). We deny Ville’s motion for appointment of 

counsel. 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. 

AFFIRMED
§ 79.90 Financial management and administrative costs. ( a ) Grantees must comply with applicable requirements of the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards under 2 CFR part 200.
( b ) Grantees must use a financial management system that provides adequate fiscal control and accounting records and meets the requirements set forth in 2 CFR part 200.
( c ) Payment up to the amount specified in the legal services grant must be made only for allowable, allocable, and reasonable costs in conducting the work under the legal services grant. The determination of allowable costs must be made in accordance with the applicable Federal Cost Principles set forth in 2 CFR part 200.
( d ) Costs for administration by a grantee must not exceed 10 percent of the total amount of the legal services grant. Administrative costs will consist of all costs associated with the management of the program, including administrative costs of subcontractors.
# Official Journal L 74/13 M

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 74 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 4913 March 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 74

English edition

Legislation

Volume 4913 March 2006

---

| Contents | | I   Acts whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Council Regulation (EC) No 394/2006 of 27 February 2006 amending and updating Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports of dual-use items and technology | 1 |

Contents

I   Acts whose publication is obligatory

page

*

Council Regulation (EC) No 394/2006 of 27 February 2006 amending and updating Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports of dual-use items and technology

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2454 

To include B20 biodiesel blends as an alternative fuel for corporate average 

fuel economy purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2007 

Mr. BURGESS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To include B20 biodiesel blends as an alternative fuel for 

corporate average fuel economy purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BIODIESEL AS ALTERNATIVE FUEL FOR CAFE 

4 PURPOSES. 

5 Section 32901(a) of title 49, United States Code, is 

6 amended— 

7 (1) in paragraph (1), by redesignating subpara8 graphs (J) and (K) as subparagraphs (K) and (L), 

9 respectively, and inserting after subparagraph (I) 

10 the following: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2454 IH

1 ‘‘(J) B20 biodiesel blend;’’; and 

2 (2) by redesignating paragraphs (7) through 

3 (16) as paragraphs (9) through (18), respectively, 

4 and insert after paragraph (6) the following: 

5 ‘‘(7) ‘biodiesel’ means the monoalkyl esters of 

6 long chain fatty acids derived from plant or animal 

7 matter which meet— 

8 ‘‘(A) the registration requirements for 

9 fuels and fuel additives established by the Envi10 ronmental Protection Agency under section 211 

11 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545); and 

12 ‘‘(B) the requirements of the American So13 ciety of Testing and Materials D6751. 

14 ‘‘(8) ‘B20 biodiesel blend’ means a mixture of 

15 biodiesel and diesel fuel approximately 20 percent of 

16 the content of which is biodiesel, and commonly 

17 known as ‘B20’.’’. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
<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 MARCH 31,
1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       4,823,633
<SECURITIES>                                 1,189,386
<RECEIVABLES>                                   66,088
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,242,386
<PP&E>                                         253,553
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,519,693
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          277,553
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,952,930
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,519,693
<SALES>                                         50,625
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               117,052
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  806,877
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (689,825)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (689,825)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.06)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 59.110 Recapture provisions.

If a facility for which a grant has been awarded ceases to be operated as a State home for the purpose for which the grant was made, the United States shall be entitled to recover from the State which was the recipient of the grant or from the then owner of such construction as follows:

(a) If less than 20 years has lapsed since the grant was awarded, and VA provided 65 percent of the estimated cost to construct, acquire or renovate a State home facility principally for furnishing domiciliary care, nursing home care, adult day health care, hospital care, or non-institutional care to veterans, VA shall be entitled to recover 65 percent of the current value of such facility (but in no event an amount greater than the amount of assistance provided for such under these regulations), as determined by agreement of the parties or by action brought in the district court of the United States for the district in which the facility is situated.

(b) Based on the time periods for grant amounts set forth below, if VA provided between 50 and 65 percent of the estimated cost of expansion, remodeling, or alteration of an existing State home facility, VA shall be entitled to recover the amount of the grant as determined by agreement of the parties or by action brought in the district court of the United States for the district in which the facility is situated:

| Grant amount (dollars in thousands) | Recovery period (in years) |
| --- | --- |
| 0-250 | 7 |
| 251-500 | 8 |
| 501-750 | 9 |
| 751-1,000 | 10 |
| 1,001-1,250 | 11 |
| 1,251-1,500 | 12 |
| 1,501-1,750 | 13 |
| 1,751-2,000 | 14 |
| 2,001-2,250 | 15 |
| 2,251-2,500 | 16 |
| 2,501-2,750 | 17 |
| 2,751-3,000 | 18 |
| Over 3,000 | 20 |

(c) If the magnitude of the VA contribution is below 50 percent of the estimated cost of the expansion, remodeling, or alteration of an existing State home facility recognized by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Under Secretary for Health may authorize a recovery period between 7 and 20 years depending on the grant amount involved and the magnitude of the project.

(d) This section does not apply to any portion of a State home in which VA has established and operates an outpatient clinic.

(Authority: [38 U.S.C. 101](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/38/101), [501](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/38/501), [1710](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/38/1710), [1742](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/38/1742), [8105](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/38/8105), [8131-8137](https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/38/8131))
N O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO NIN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R



### NO. CAAP-20-0000595

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

O F THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

STATE OF HAWAI # I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. P ATRICIA L. HUNT, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT WAILUKU DIVISION (CASE NO. 2DTI-20-009913)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION (By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and Wadsworth, JJ.) Upon review of the record, we lack appellate jurisdiction over self-represented Defendant-Appellant Patricia L. Hunt's ( Hunt ) appeal from Criminal No. 2DTI-20-009913 in the District Court of the Second Circuit, Wailuku Division ( district court ).

It is unclear from the notice of appeal which of the district court's rulings Hunt seeks to appeal. If she seeks to appeal from the district court's Judgment entered on June 2, 2020, the appeal is untimely because Hunt did not file her October 5, 2020 notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of the Judgment, as Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure ( HRAP ) Rule 4(b)(1) requires. Further, Hunt's motion for reconsideration, filed on June 22, 2020, did not extend the appeal deadline. See HRAP Rule 4(b)(2) (providing that in criminal appeals, only motions under HRPP Rule 33 and 34 extend the deadline to file the notice of appeal).

If Hunt seeks to appeal from the district court's June 29, 2020 post-judgment order denying Hunt's "Motion to Request Trial for Tickets," the appeal is likewise untimely Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-20-0000595 10-NOV-2020 09:02 AM Dkt. 7 ODSLJN O T F O RP U B L IC A T IO NIN W E S T ' S H AWA I # I RE P O R T S A N D P A C IF IC RE P O R T E R



### because Hunt's notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days after entry of that order.

There is no indication in the record that the district court granted Hunt an extension of time to file the notice of appeal, under HRAP Rule 4(b)(2).

"As a general rule, compliance with the requirement of the timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional, . . . and we must dismiss an appeal on our motion if we lack jurisdiction." Grattafiori v. State, 79 Hawai # i 10, 13, 897 P.2d 937, 940 (1995) (citations, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted). See HRAP Rule 26(b) ("[N]o court or judge or justice is authorized to change the jurisdictional requirements contained in Rule 4 of these rules.").

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are dismissed as moot.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, November 10, 2020.
/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Chief Judge
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard Associate Judge /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Associate Judge

2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6269

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JEFFREY A. PLEASANT, a/k/a Jeffrey A. Pleasants,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:00-cr-00071-REP-RCY-1; 3:17-

cv-00451-REP)

Submitted: May 23, 2019 Decided: May 29, 2019

Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey A. Pleasant seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner 

must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the 

motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 

484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pleasant has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny 

Pleasant’s motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED