alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 23.500 Employment. ( a ) *General.* ( 1 ) No person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination in employment, or recruitment, consideration, or selection therefor, whether full-time or part-time, under any education program or activity operated by a recipient that receives Federal financial assistance.
( 2 ) A recipient shall make all employment decisions in any education program or activity operated by such recipient in a nondiscriminatory manner and shall not limit, segregate, or classify applicants or employees in any way that could adversely affect any applicant's or employee's employment opportunities or status because of sex.
( 3 ) A recipient shall not enter into any contractual or other relationship which directly or indirectly has the effect of subjecting employees or students to discrimination prohibited by §§ 23.500 through 23.550, including relationships with employment and referral agencies, with labor unions, and with organizations providing or administering fringe benefits to employees of the recipient.
( 4 ) A recipient shall not grant preferences to applicants for employment on the basis of attendance at any educational institution or entity that admits as students only or predominantly members of one sex, if the giving of such preferences has the effect of discriminating on the basis of sex in violation of these Title IX regulations.
( b ) *Application.* The provisions of §§ 23.500 through 23.550 apply to: ( 1 ) Recruitment, advertising, and the process of application for employment;
( 2 ) Hiring, upgrading, promotion, consideration for and award of tenure, demotion, transfer, layoff, termination, application of nepotism policies, right of return from layoff, and rehiring;
( 3 ) Rates of pay or any other form of compensation, and changes in compensation;
( 4 ) Job assignments, classifications, and structure, including position descriptions, lines of progression, and seniority lists;
( 5 ) The terms of any collective bargaining agreement;
( 6 ) Granting and return from leaves of absence, leave for pregnancy, childbirth, false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, leave for persons of either sex to care for children or dependents, or any other leave;
( 7 ) Fringe benefits available by virtue of employment, whether or not administered by the recipient;
( 8 ) Selection and financial support for training, including apprenticeship, professional meetings, conferences, and other related activities, selection for tuition assistance, selection for sabbaticals and leaves of absence to pursue training;
( 9 ) Employer-sponsored activities, including social or recreational programs; and
( 10 ) Any other term, condition, or privilege of employment.
§ 1.130 Type II securities; guidelines for obligations issued for university and housing purposes. ( a ) *Investment quality.* An obligation issued for housing, university, or dormitory purposes is a Type II security only if it: ( 1 ) Qualifies as an investment security, as defined in § 1.2(e); and
( 2 ) Is issued for the appropriate purpose and by a qualifying issuer.
( b ) *Obligation issued for university purposes.* ( 1 ) An obligation issued by a State or political subdivision or agency of a State or political subdivision for the purpose of financing the construction or improvement of facilities at or used by a university or a degree-granting college-level institution, or financing loans for studies at such institutions, qualifies as a Type II security. Facilities financed in this manner may include student buildings, classrooms, university utility buildings, cafeterias, stadiums, and university parking lots.
( 2 ) An obligation that finances the construction or improvement of facilities used by a hospital may be eligible as a Type II security, if the hospital is a department or a division of a university, or otherwise provides a nexus with university purposes, such as an affiliation agreement between the university and the hospital, faculty positions of the hospital staff, and training of medical students, interns, residents, and nurses (*e.g.,* a “teaching hospital”).
( c ) *Obligation issued for housing purposes.* An obligation issued for housing purposes may qualify as a Type II security if the security otherwise meets the criteria for a Type II security.
#### Tessie Hess, Respondent, *v.*The Metropolitan Street Railway Co., Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict.

Henry A. Robinson (John T. Little, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.

Joseph M. Williams, for respondent.

Hascall, J.

Under the abundant and controlling authority of Pierce v. Met. St. Railway Co., 21 App. Div. 427-432, it is manifest that the verdict complained of herein must be set aside. In that case, exactly as in the one at bar, the plaintiff had no evidence *824to corroborate her on the question of defendant’s negligence; but, when plaintiff rested, there was sufficient proof to carry the case to the jury. The defendant, in both cases, made out defenses by disinterested witnesses, so that it may not be said that only the conductor and gripman testified in the defendant’s behalf. The verdict was clearly against the weight of evidence.

We think that permitting the physician to testify, against objection, to the presence of bodily ills, not complained of in the pleading of the plaintiff, was error, also calling for a reversal. • This subjected the defendant to a surprise that it could not have guarded against, since it was not called upon to meet proof of other particulars of permanent injuries than those definitely stated in the complaint. Hergert v. Union Railway Co., 25 App. Div. 220.

Judgment and order appealed from reversed and new trial ordered, upon condition that defendant pay to plaintiff the costs and disbursements of the former trial. '

The appellant to have costs and disbursements of this appeal, to abide the event of the action.

McCarthy, J., concurs.

Judgment and order reversed, and new trial ordered, upon condition that defendant pay plaintiff costs and disbursements of former trial, with costs to appellant to abide event.
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

In re : JEREMIAH W. BALIK

, Petitioner

______________________

2021

- 186

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

.

______________________

ON PETITION AND ON MOTION

______________________

P ER C URIAM

.
O R D E R

Jeremiah W. Balik has filed a submission entitled “Preemptory Appeal [and] Motion for Writ of Mandamus

, ”

in which he asks the court to “compel [the] Board of Veterans’ Appeals . . . to render a timely decision.” ECF No. 2 at

3. He also files a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and a motion for an extension to file IFP and

notice of what he characterizes as a related district court

case.

To obtain mandamu s , a petitioner must show (1) that there are no adequate alternative legal channels through

which the petitioner may obtain that relief ; (2) that he has a clear legal right to relief; and (3) that the grant of Case: 21-186 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 11/17/2021IN RE : BALIK 2

mandamus relief is appropriate under the circumstances. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct . for D.C. , 542 U.S. 367, 380

– 81 (2004).

Mr. Balik has not met that standard here. To the extent that Mr. Balik believes that the Board has unreasonably delayed the processing of a pending claim, he can file a petition for a writ of mandamus at the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to compel the Boa rd to take appropriate action. See Martin v. O’Rourke , 891 F.3d 1338, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2018). This court reviews those decisions on appeal from the Veterans Court. Mr. Balik therefore has an adequate alternative channel to obtain the relief that he appears to seek from this court.

Accordingly,

I T I S O R DERED T HAT :

(1) The petition is d enied.

(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.

November 17 , 2021

Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

s24 Case: 21-186 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 11/17/2021
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2309 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 2309

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 31, 2007

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 3916 Milgen Road in Columbus, Georgia, as the ``Frank G. Lumpkin, 
                      Jr. Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. FRANK G. LUMPKIN, JR. POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 3916 Milgen Road in Columbus, Georgia, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Frank G. Lumpkin, Jr. 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 ``Frank G. 
Lumpkin, Jr. Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 2007.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
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 Tofutti Brands Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 3, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David Mintz, 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:





(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/David Mintz *


David Mintz


Chief Executive Officer


Date:  May 18, 2010





*           The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the Company’s offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
41498.

#### CUMMINGS v. COMMUNITY FINANCE COMPANY OF GLENNVILLE, INC.

Jordan, Judge.

Community Finance Company of Glennville, Incorporated filed in the City Court of Reidsville an affidavit for bail, a bond, and a copy of a purported loan contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. To this was attached process; however, no petition containing a declaration in trover or prayer for process was filed prior to or subsequent to these pleadings. The defendant filed a motion to quash process and service upon the ground that the plaintiff’s pleadings did not contain a prayer for process. This motion was denied and the exception is to that order and to the subsequent judgment of the court overruling the defendant’s general demurrers to the pleadings. *Held:*

“Persons against whom there is no prayer for process are not parties defendant to an action, and the clerk has no authority to annex to a petition a process requiring their appearance.” *Seisel & Co. v. Wells,*99 Ga. 159 (1) (25 SE 266). *287Since the record in this case shows that the plaintiff failed to pray for process to issue against the defendant, the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to quash process and service, and such error rendered the subsequent proceedings in this case nugatory. *Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Holloman,*95 Ga. App. 602 (98 SE2d 177); *Crown Laundry v. Burch,*205 Ga. 211 (53 SE2d 116).

Submitted September 7, 1965

Decided September 17, 1965.

*Sdm Johnson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Deen, J., concur.*
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION**  I, Paul A. Kruger, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of DIRT Motor Sports, Inc. 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and have:   a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this annual report is being prepared;    b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresas of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the“Evaluation Date”); and    c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):   a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls whichcould adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any materialweaknesses in internal controls; and    b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly reportwhether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors thatcould significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recentevaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses.        Date:  May 12, 2006 /s/ Paul A. Kruger   Paul A. Kruger,   Chairman of the Board
§ 20.302 Rule 302. Appeals with a request for a Board hearing. ( a ) Except as described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, for appeals in which the appellant requested, on the Notice of Disagreement, a Board hearing, the Board's decision will be based on a review of the following: ( 1 ) Evidence of record at the time of the agency of original jurisdiction's decision on the issue or issues on appeal;
( 2 ) Evidence submitted by the appellant or his or her representative at the hearing, to include testimony provided at the hearing; and
( 3 ) Evidence submitted by the appellant or his or her representative within 90 days following the hearing.
( b ) In the event that the hearing request is withdrawn pursuant to § 20.704(e), the Board's decision will be based on a review of evidence described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and evidence submitted by the appellant or his or her representative within 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal.
( c ) In the event that the appellant does not appear for a scheduled hearing, and the hearing is not rescheduled subject to § 20.704(d), the Board's decision will be based on a review of evidence described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and evidence submitted by the appellant or his or her representative within 90 days following the date of the scheduled hearing.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7105, 7107, 7113(b))
[84 FR 182, Jan. 18, 2019]
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-07 -00507-CV In th e In teres t of

Z. M. , C. M. a n d A. G. F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 345TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- F M- 06- 0031 44 , HO NORAB LE LORA J. LIVI NGSTON , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N Appellant Thomas Maldonado’s brief on appea l w as orig inally due Mar ch 17, 2008. On J uly 18, 2008, this Court order ed appellant’s counsel to file a brief on appellant’ s behalf no later than August 18. In response , counsel filed a motion st atingthat d espite re peate d attempts, he has been una ble to rea ch Maldona do since July 17, 2007. Counsel further repr esents that due to this lack of c omm un ic atio n, he ha s b e e n una ble to o bta in M a ldo na do ’s a uth or izatio n to pr oc e e d w iththi s a p p e a l . T o d at e , n o a

p p e l l ant ’ s b r i e f o r m o t i o nf o r e x t e n s i o no f

t i m e h a s b e e nf

i l e d . A c c o r d i n g l y, we dismiss this appeal for w ant of prose cution.

__________________________________________ Diane M. H enson, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Waldrop and H enson Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: Oc tober 17, 2008
II 

Calendar No. 250 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 235 

[Report No. 110–117] 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

JUNE 28, 2007 

Reported by Mr. BINGAMAN, without amendment 

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. 

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

3 SECTION 1. RENEGOTIATION OF PAYMENT SCHEDULE. 

4 Section 15 of Public Law 100–516 (102 Stat. 2573) 

5 is amended as follows: 

6 (1) By amending paragraph (2) of subsection 

7 (a) to read as follows: 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•HR 235 RS

1 ‘‘(2) If, as of January 1, 2006, the Secretary 

2 of the Interior and the Redwood Valley County 

3 Water District have not renegotiated the schedule of 

4 payment, the District may enter into such additional 

5 non-Federal obligations as are necessary to finance 

6 procurement of dedicated water rights and improve7 ments necessary to store and convey those rights to 

8 provide for the District’s water needs. The Secretary 

9 shall reschedule the payments due under loans num10 bered 14–06–200–8423A and 14–06–200–8423A 

11 Amendatory and said payments shall commence 

12 when such additional obligations have been finan13 cially satisfied by the District. The date of the initial 

14 payment owed by the District to the United States 

15 shall be regarded as the start of the District’s repay16 ment period and the time upon which any interest 

17 shall first be computed and assessed under section 

18 5 of the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956 (43 

19 U.S.C. 422a et seq.).’’. 

20 (2) By striking subsection (c). 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS

hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
Calendar No. 250 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 235 

[Report No. 110

–117] 

AN ACT 

To allow for the renegotiation of the payment 

Water District, and for other purposes. the Interior and the Redwood Valley County schedule of contracts between the Secretary of 

JUNE 28, 2007 

Reported without amendment 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
EXHIBIT
32.1





STATEMENT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 BY PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER





I,
Keith Brackpool, herby certify, to my knowledge, that:





1.
the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cadiz Inc. for the period
ended September 30, 2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934, as amended; and


2.
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Cadiz
Inc.





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Statement as of the date
first written above.





Dated:
November 6, 2009








/s/ Keith Brackpool


Keith
Brackpool


Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer
§ 21.132 Repetition of the course. ( a ) *Repeating all or part of the course.* A veteran, having completed a course under Chapter 31 according to the standards and practices of the institution, ordinarily will not pursue it again at the expense of VA. However, VA may approve repetition of all, or any part of the course when VA determines that the repetition is necessary to accomplish the veteran's vocational rehabilitation. A veteran repeating a course under Chapter 31 is subject to the same requirements for satisfactory pursuit and completion of the course as are other veterans taking the course unless a longer period is needed because of the veteran's reduced work tolerance. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3104(a)(7))
( b ) *Review course.* A veteran who has completed a course of training under Chapter 31 may pursue a review course, such as a bar review course, if it is specifically organized and conducted as a review course. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3104(a)(7))
( c ) *Auditing a subject.* Auditing, as defined in § 21.4200(i), may not be authorized as a part of any rehabilitation plan. However, if an individual repeats a course under the conditions described in paragraph (a) of this section, the course shall not be considered an audited course, if pursued in the same manner as a subject offered for credit. The individual must meet the same requirements as other students, and not be a mere listener.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3680(a))