alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 792.47 If my request is granted, what fees apply? ( a ) *Generally.* You must pay any fees associated with complying with your request, including copying fees for records and witness fees for testimony. The General Counsel may condition the production of records or appearance for testimony upon advance payment of a reasonable estimate of the fees.
( b ) *Fees for records.* You must pay all fees for searching, reviewing and duplicating records produced in response to your request. The fees will be the same as those charged by the NCUA under its Freedom of Information Act regulations, § 792.19.
( c ) *Witness fees.* You must pay the fees, expenses, and allowances prescribed by the court's rules for attendance by a witness. If no such fees are prescribed, the local federal district court rule concerning witness fees, for the federal district court closest to where the witness appears, will apply. For testimony by current NCUA employees, you must pay witness fees, allowances, and expenses to the General Counsel by check made payable to the “National Credit Union Administration” within 30 days from receipt of NCUA's billing statement. For the testimony of a former NCUA employee, you must pay witness fees, allowances, and expenses directly to the former employee, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1821 or other applicable statutes.
( d ) *Certification of records.* The NCUA may authenticate or certify records to facilitate their use as evidence. If you require authenticated records, you must request certified copies at least 45 days before the date they will be needed. The request should be sent to the General Counsel. You will be charged a certification fee of $5.00 per document.
( e ) *Waiver of fees.* A waiver or reduction of any fees in connection with the testimony, production, or certification or authentication of records may be granted in the discretion of the General Counsel. Waivers will not be granted routinely. If you request a waiver, your request for records or testimony must state the reasons why a waiver should be granted.
[62 FR 56054, Oct. 29, 1997, as amended at 65 FR 63789, Oct. 25, 2000]
#### § 390.306 Public unit.

The term *public unit* means the United States, any state of the United States, the District of Columbia, any territory of the United States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, any county, any municipality or any political subdivision thereof.
1

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2214

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Parker Willingham, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 5, 2010

Filed: February 23, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, Parker

Willingham pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit wire fraud and to defraud the

United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the collection of tax revenue,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The district court1

 sentenced him to 41 months in

prison and 3 years of supervised release, and ordered him to pay $31,650 in

restitution. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel argues that the district court erred
-2-

by using the attempted loss rather than the actual loss to enhance the base offense

level, that the sentence did not reflect Willingham’s limited participation in the

conspiracy, and that the sentence is inconsistent with sentences received by similarly

situated codefendants.

Upon careful review, we conclude that Willingham knowingly and voluntarily

entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver, that the issues raised on appeal

fall within the scope of the appeal waiver, and that enforcing the appeal waiver would

not result in a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-

92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (stating circumstances in which court will enforce appeal

waiver); see also United States v. Estrada-Bahena, 201 F.3d 1070, 1071 (8th Cir.

2000) (per curiam) (enforcing appeal waiver in Anders case).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issue for appeal beyond the scope of the waiver.

Accordingly, we enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss the appeal. We also grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463), announcement is made of the following National Advisory body scheduled to meet during the month of February 2000. 

*Name:*                     Advisory Committee on Infant Mortality (ACIM).                

*Date and Time:*                     February 24, 2000; 9 a.m.-5 p.m. February 25, 2000; 8:30 a.m.-;3 p.m.                 

*Place:*                     Wyndham City Center Hotel, 1143 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20037, (202) 775-0800.                 

The meeting is open to the public. 

*Purpose:*                     The Committee provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services on the following: Department programs which are directed at reducing infant mortality and improving the health status of pregnant women and infants; factors affecting the continuum of care with respect to maternal and child health care, including outcomes following childbirth; factors determining the length of hospital stay following childbirth; strategies to coordinate the variety of Federal, State, and local and private programs and efforts that are designed to deal with the health and social problems impacting on infant mortality; and the implementation of the Healthy Start initiative and infant mortality objectives from                     *Healthy People 2000: National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives*.                 

*Agenda:*                     Topics that will be discussed include: Early Postpartum Discharge; Low-Birth Weight; Disparities in Infant Mortality; and the Healthy Start Program.                 

Anyone requiring information regarding the Committee should contact Peter C. van Dyck, M.D., M.P.H., Executive Secretary, Advisory Committee on Infant Mortality, Health Resources and Services Administration, Room 18-05, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone (301) 443-2170. 

Individuals who are interested in attending any portion of the meeting or who have questions regarding the meeting should contact Ms. Kerry P. Nesseler, Health Resources and Services Administration, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Telephone (301) 443-2170. 

Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate. 

Dated: January 10, 2000. 

Jane M. Harrison, 

Director, Division of Policy Review and Coordination. 

[FR Doc. 00-1031 Filed 1-14-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160-15-P
Exhibit 18.1

                               SODAK GAMING, INC.

                    LETTER OF KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP REGARDING
                           CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING METHOD



March 18, 1998

Sodak Gaming, Inc.
5301 S. Highway 16
Rapid City, SD  57701

Ladies and Gentlemen:


We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of Sodak Gaming and subsidiaries
as of December 31, 1997 and 1996 and the related consolidated statements of
operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows of each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 1997 and have reported thereon under date
of February 16, 1998. The aforementioned consolidated financial statements and
our audit report thereon are included in the Company's annual report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997. As stated in Note 15 to those
financial statements, the Company changed its method of accounting for
pre-opening and start-up costs and the amortization of pre-opening and start-up
costs. The Company changed to capitalizing such costs subsequent to obtaining
all regulatory approvals and authorizations for the underlying project and from
amortizing such costs over the life of the project to expensing them immediately
upon opening of the new facility, and states that the newly adopted accounting
method is preferable in the circumstances because it conforms to the industry
practice of major gaming companies. In accordance with your request, we have
reviewed and discussed with Company officials the circumstances and business
judgment and planning upon which the decision to make this change in the method
of accounting was based.

With regard to the aforementioned accounting change, authoritative criteria have
not been established for evaluating the preferability of one acceptable method
of accounting over another acceptable method. However, for purposes of Sodak
Gaming, Inc.'s compliance with the requirements of the Securities and Exchange
Commission, we are furnishing this letter.

Based on our review and discussion, with reliance on management's business
judgment and planning, we concur that the newly adopted method of accounting is
preferable in the Company's circumstances.



Very truly yours,



\s\ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
#### EDWARDS *v.*RICHARDS.

Covenant to pay money for another thing — -the thing must first be performed or tendered— 1 written contract — latent ambiguity.

Where there is a promise to pay money for a patent-right to make and vend patented articles, the holder of the patent must have a title himself, and assign the right or lender it before ho can sue for the pay for it.

*597When a contract is reduced to writing, it is supposed to embody the agreement and put an end to the parol negotiations of the parties.

A written contract is not to be explained by parol, except as to some latent ambiguity. ,

Covenant on a contract to deliver a patent for the exclusive right to make and vend buckets, &c. in certain counties. The declaration avers the offer to deliver the patents, and a refusal, and assigns for the breach the non-payment of the money. The defence was, the plaintiff did not deliver or offer a transfer of the patent according to the contract.

*Strait,*for the plaintiff,

offered a bundle of papers as the transfers tendered, under the contract.

*King,*

took sundry exceptions to their sufficiency, and cited 6 • *Cranch*324.

*N. Wright,*

on the same side.

*Strait,*

then offered parol evidence that the parties understood the extent of the plaintiff’s right, and expressly contracted in reference to it.

*King,*

objected.

*Strait,*

afterwards moved to open up the nonsuit and for a new trial, but the motion was overruled.

Lane, J.

The assignment offered to Edwards is limited to' maleing up the entire work and vending here, or the preparation of the parts for exportation to be made up in foreign countries. The contract is to convey an'absolute right, without any limitation. He has shown no title in himself to convey according to his contract, and unless he shows such, must fail; for the defendant was not bound to part with his money, unless he got what by the contract he was to receive for it.

Lane, J.

The parol negotiations and understandings of the parties were put an end to when the contract was written, they are supposed to have reduced their agreement to writing, and it cannot now be altered or enlarged by parol, nor explained except in respect of a latent ambiguity. None such is in this case.

The plaintiff then submitted to a nonsuit, and the jury was discharged.
230126 ORD RE FEE EXAMINER WITHDRAW APP VERSION JANUARY 26, 2023 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

ORDER CONCERNING WITHDRAWAL OF REQUEST FOR 

ORDER COMPELLING REPAYMENT OF TAX WITHHOLDINGS

In light of the Withdrawal of Request for Order Compelling Repayment of Tax 

Withholdings (Docket Entry No. 23326 in Case No. 17-3283), the Tenth Interim and Consolidated 

Semiannual Application of the Fee Examiner and Godfrey & Kahn, S.C., Counsel to the Fee 

Examiner, for Allowance of Compensation for Services Rendered and Reimbursement of Expenses 

for the Period from April 1, 2022 Through September 30, 2022 (Docket Entry No. 22847 in Case 

No. 17-3283) (the “Application”) is deemed withdrawn to the extent that the Application was not 

previously granted by the Court. (See Order Allowing Tenth Interim and Consolidated 

Semiannual Application of the Fee Examiner and Godfrey & Kahn, S.C. But Adjourning Only the 

Tax Withholding Issue, Docket Entry No. 23061 in Case No. 17-3283.)

1 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case 

number and the last four (4) digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as 

applicable, are the (i) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (the “Commonwealth”) 

(Bankruptcy Case No. 17-BK-3283-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3481); (ii) 

Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation (“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17-

BK-3284-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 8474); (iii) Puerto Rico Highways 

and Transportation Authority (“HTA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17-BK-3567-LTS) (Last 

Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3808); (iv) Employees Retirement System of the 

Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (“ERS”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17-

BK-3566-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 9686); (v) Puerto Rico Electric 

Power Authority (“PREPA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17-BK-4780-LTS) (Last Four Digits 

of Federal Tax ID: 3747); and (vi) Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority (“PBA”) 

(Bankruptcy Case No. 19-BK-5523-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3801) 

(Title III case numbers are listed as Bankruptcy Case numbers due to software 

limitations).

In re:

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO,

as representative of

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO et al.,

Debtors.1

PROMESA

Title III

No. 17 BK 3283-LTS

(Jointly Administered)

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23395 Filed:01/26/23 Entered:01/26/23 15:37:37 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
230126 ORD RE FEE EXAMINER WITHDRAW APP VERSION JANUARY 26, 2023 2

This Order resolves Docket Entry No. 22847 in Case No. 17-3283.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 26, 2023

 /s/ Laura Taylor Swain 

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN

United States District Judge

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23395 Filed:01/26/23 Entered:01/26/23 15:37:37 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
#### § 609.935 Business planning.

When engaging in E-commerce, the business plan required under part 618 of this chapter, subpart J, must describe the E-commerce initiative, including intended objectives, business risks, security issues, relevant markets, and legal compliance.
#### § 625.27 Board decision.

Following filing of the recommended decision with the Board, the Board shall render a final decision on the application. The Board maintains full discretion to uphold, reverse, remand, or alter the recommended decision. The Board may order further proceedings (including those set forth in §§ 622.11 and 622.13 through 622.16 of this chapter) upon request by any party to the application proceeding or on its own initiative, but such proceedings may not include discovery or an evidentiary hearing with respect to the issue of whether the agency's position was substantially justified.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his
knowledge, the quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) of ANTs software
inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), for the period ended June 30,
2009:





1.  Fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities 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 the Company.





This
certification is being provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not to be
deemed a part of this Report, nor is it to be deemed to be “filed” for any
purpose whatsoever.





Date:
August 18, 2009





/s/ Joseph
Kozak


Joseph
Kozak, Chief Executive Officer and President





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company, and will be retained by the
Company, and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon
request.
§ 792.53 Definitions. For purposes of this subpart: ( a ) *Individual* means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
( b ) *Maintain* includes maintain, collect, use, or disseminate.
( c ) *Record* means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by NCUA, and that contains the name, or an identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual.
( d ) *System of records* means a group of any records under NCUA's control from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual.
( e ) *Routine use* means, with respect to the disclosure of a record, the use of such record for a purpose which is compatible with the purpose for which it was collected.
( f ) *Statistical record* means a record in a system of records maintained for statistical research or reporting purposes only and not used in whole or in part in making any determination about an identifiable individual, except as provided by section 8 of title 13 of the United States Code.
( g ) *Notice of Systems of Records* means the annual notice published by NCUA in the Federal Register informing the public of the existence and character of the systems of records it maintains. The Notice of Systems of Records also is available on NCUA's Web site at *http://www.ncua.gov .*
( h ) *System manager* means the NCUA official responsible for the maintenance, collection, use or distribution of information contained in a system of records. The system manager for each system of records is provided in the Federal Register publication of NCUA's annual systems of records notice.
( i ) *Working day* means Monday through Friday excluding legal public holidays.
[54 FR 18476, May 1, 1989, as amended at 73 FR 56938, Oct. 1, 2008]
```

[Federal Register: February 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 23)]
[Notices]               
[Page 5836]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04fe10-90]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6892]

 
Lifting of Nonproliferation Measures Against One Russian Entity

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: A determination has been made, pursuant to Section 6 of 
Executive Order 12938 of November 14, 1994, as amended, to remove 
nonproliferation measures on one Russian entity.

DATES: Effective Date: February 4, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela K. Durham, Office of Missile 
Threat Reduction, Bureau of International Security and 
Nonproliferation, Department of State (202-647-4930).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the authorities vested in the 
President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of 
America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (``IEEPA''), the National Emergencies Act (50 
U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et 
seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and Section 6 of 
Executive Order 12938 of November 14, 1994, as amended, a determination 
was made on January 26, 2010, that it is in the foreign policy and 
national security interests of the United States to remove the 
restrictions imposed pursuant to Sections 4(b), 4(c), and 4(d) of the 
Executive Order on the following Russian entity, its sub-units and 
successors:
    1. Baltic State Technical University.
    These restrictions were imposed on July 30, 1998 (see 63 FR 42089).

    Dated: January 29, 2010.
C.S. Eliot Kang,
Acting Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and 
Nonproliferation.
[FR Doc. 2010-2418 Filed 2-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-27-P
```
#### THAYER v. HOWARD, ET AL.

Title bond — trustee—accoun t — equity.

Where a tille bond for land is transferred as indemnity for liabilities incurred on his account, tire holder must account and show'himself damnified to the extent of his demand on tire property.

Persons taking the fee of land with knowledge of an outstanding equity, hold as trustees of the equity.

Chancery. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

*Giddings*and *Wade,*for the complainants. ■

*Griswo/d*and *Sawteil,*for the defendants.

By the Court.

One Wilcox purchased of Hinckley, in 1821, seven acres of ground, and took his bond to make a deed, when the purchase money should be paid. The complainant and one Hollis Abbot, who were jointly securities for Wilcox, took an assignment on the back of the title bond to indemnify them, and went jointly into possession of the land. Abbot and Thayer subsequently contracted in writing to sell an undivided half of three acres of the ground, including a distillery to McNair, and put him into possession. After this, Abbot secretly procured a deed from Hinckley to himself for the whole seven acres, surrendered the bond, and conveyed the land to the defendant, Howard, who, at the same time, covenanted with McNair to convey to him the three acre distillery tract. Howard has since conveyed the residue of the tract to the defendant, Keys, who now holds. Howard, McNair, and Keys, had notice of the complainant’s equity. Abbot dealt with Wilcox and the complainant jointly, and was perfectly conversant with the *707whole matter. Upon this state of facts, we are asked to decree a convéyance to the complainant. He has, as it appears to us, an interest in an undivided one-fourth of the distillery lot, and in an undivided one-half of the residue. But what is the precise extent of that interest we are not advised. He and Abbot took Wilcox’s interest merely as .collateral security. Wilcox is not made a party to this bill, and we know not that either the complainant or Abbot have ever paid a cent for Wilcox. The case is not ripe for a decree, and must go to a master for an account. The complainant will do well to consider if he can proceed much farther — without Wilcox is made a party. The master will ascertain:

1. How much Abbot paid Hinckley to complete the purchase.

2. How much McNair has paid on account of his purchase- to Abbot, to the complainant, and to Howard.

3. What sums have been paid by the complainant, or by Abbot, for Wilcox.

4. What Howard paid, or agreed to pay Abbot for the land, and what, if any, condition of defeasance was entered into between them concerning it.

5. What sum, if any, Keys paid Howard for the land, and what, if any, were the conditions of the purchase.

6. What is the present value of the distillery tract and of the-residue.