alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 29.6 Program performance standards. ( a ) Every registered apprenticeship program must have at least one registered apprentice, except for the following specified periods of time, which may not exceed 1 year: ( 1 ) Between the date when a program is registered and the date of registration for its first apprentice(s); or
( 2 ) Between the date that a program graduates an apprentice and the date of registration for the next apprentice(s) in the program.
( b ) Registration Agencies must evaluate performance of registered apprenticeship programs. ( 1 ) The tools and factors to be used must include, but are not limited to: ( i ) Quality assurance assessments;
( ii ) Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Compliance Reviews; and
( iii ) Completion rates.
( 2 ) Any additional tools and factors used by the Registration Agency in evaluating program performance must adhere to the goals and policies of the Department articulated in this part and in guidance issued by the Office of Apprenticeship.
( c ) In order to evaluate completion rates, the Registration Agency must review a program's completion rates in comparison to the national average for completion rates. Based on the review, the Registration Agency must provide technical assistance to programs with completion rates lower than the national average.
( d ) Cancellation of apprenticeship agreements during the probationary period will not have an adverse impact on a sponsor's completion rate.
[73 FR 64425, Oct. 29, 2008, as amended at 85 FR 14387, Mar. 11, 2020; 87 FR 58287, Sept. 26, 2022]
§ 1979.112 Judicial review. ( a ) Within 60 days after the issuance of a final order (including a decision issued by the Secretary upon his or her discretionary review) for which judicial review is available, any person adversely affected or aggrieved by the order may file a petition for review of the order in the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the violation allegedly occurred or the circuit in which the complainant resided on the date of the violation. A final order of the Secretary is not subject to judicial review in any criminal or other civil proceeding.
( b ) If a timely petition for review is filed, the record of a case, including the record of proceedings before the administrative law judge, will be transmitted by the Board to the appropriate court pursuant to the rules of the court.
[68 FR 14107, Mar. 21, 2003, as amended at 85 FR 30621, May 20, 2020]
#### Hoyt & Ames, Respondents, *vs.*Ira Sanford, Appellant.

This was an Appeal from a judgment in the District Court of Ramsey County.

*212The action was originally commenced before Truman M. Smith, Esq. a Justice of the Peace of Kamsey County, by complaint filed December 26th, 1853.

The complaint sets forth that on the 7th day of May, 1852, one Lyman Dayton leased to Hoyt & Ames, for the term of five years, certain lands therein described, “ for the purpose of booming, hauling, rafting, securing and keeping logs and lumber, and removing the same therefrom,” &c. and reserving the right to the lessor to “ fill up and raise said land, for building purposes and other improvements.”

That said Dayton was, at the date of said lease, the owner of said land, and that the Plaintiffs took possession thereof as tenants under said lease.

That, afterwards, the Defendant Sandford entered said land, hauled and placed thereon certain logs, &c. to the damage of the Plaintiff in the sum of fifty dollars.

The Defendant demurred to the complaint, because

The Complaint recites a lease containing a reservation to the lessor of certain rights and privileges therein recited, and because the acts of the Defendant complained of are within the said reservation, and not inconsistent therewith: and because it does not appear that the Defendant is not the grantee of said Dayton, the Plaintiffs’ lessor.

And because it does not appear that the acts of the Defendant were not done under a license from, and authorized by, said Dayton.

And because the acts complained of are not inconsistent with and do not conflict with the Plaintiffs’ rights under the lease.

The Justice sustained the demurrer, and the Plaintiffs refusing to amend their complaint, judgment was rendered against them for costs.

The cause was afterwards removed to the District Court by Certiorari, where the judgment of the Justice was reversed with costs.

Erom this judgment the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Merritt Allen and Ames & Tan Etten, Counsel for Appellants.

*213Masterson *&*Simons, Counsel for Respondents.

[No “Points and authorities” are found with the files, and a judgment of Affirmance was entered by consent of Appelant’s Counsel, without argument.]
#### John M. DIMIDOWICH, dba Micro Image, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BELL & HOWELL, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 84-1995.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Feb. 25, 1987.

Robert F. Koehler, Jr., Sacramento, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.

McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, John R. Reese, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellee.

Before FLETCHER, BOOCHEVER and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.

The opinion, filed November 6, 1986, 803 F.2d 1473 is modified as set forth following.

Insert on page 1478 second column line 17 of 803 F.2d before Nonetheless: “It will thus be rare for a court to infer a vertical combination solely from a business’s unilateral refusal to deal with distributors or customers who do not comply with certain conditions.”

Delete on page 1478 second column second line from bottom: “necessary to show a combination between himself and B & H” and replace with “necessary to infer a vertical combination from a unilateral refusal to deal.”

All petitions to file amicus briefs are denied.
#### § 36.455 Textbooks and curricular material.

Nothing in these Title IX regulations shall be interpreted as requiring or prohibiting or abridging in any way the use of particular textbooks or curricular materials.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

LUIS RIOS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-554

[June 25, 2020]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Caroline Shepherd, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 2010CF009222AXXXMB.

Luis Rios, Carrabelle, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard Valuntas, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, C.J., CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### CITY OF CARTERVILLE, Respondent, v. JAMES HICKS, Appellant.

Springfield Court of Appeals,

May 6, 1912.

APPEAL AND ERROR: No Bill of Exceptions Filed. Where no ' hill of exceptions was filed and no errors appear in the record proper, the judgment will he affirmed.

Akpiemed.

*I. N. Threlheld*for appellant.

*A. M. Baird*for respondent.

COX, J.

Conviction for violation of a city ordinance and defendant has appealed. No bill of exceptions has been filed and there is nothing before us but the record proper and it is free from error. Judgment affirmed.

All concur.
AFS-11-112-E Jan 20 2011

Exemption No. 8469C Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2004-19868

Mr. William R. Riesen Jr.

21 Corte Del Sol Rancho Mirage, CA 92270

Dear Mr. Riesen:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8469, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated December 20, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an extension of Exemption No. 8469, as amended. That exemption from § 91.109(a) and (b)(3) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows you to conduct certain flight instruction and simulated instrument flights to meet the recent experience requirements in Beechcraft airplanes equipped with a functioning throwover control wheel.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to you.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8469, as amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition.2

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8469, as amended, to January 31, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 8469, as amended, remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 8469.

Sincerely,

/s/ Raymond Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service
#### JONES v HARMON et

Ohio Supreme Court

No 22155.

Decided May 14, 1930

*322Marshall, CJ., Kinkade, Robinson and Matthias, JJ., concur. Jones and Day, JJ., concur in the syllabus but not in the judgment, since they do not agree with the law pronounced in Heidle v. Baldwin, 118 Ohio St., 375.
#### U. S. FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO v DECKER, Admr, etc

Ohio Supreme Court

No 22104.

Decided April 23, 1930

Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Motor vehicle use map. BoiseNational Forest. Idaho City Ranger District, Idaho**
 
2013:Front | Back
2014:Front | Back
2017:Front | Back
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.28:B 63/18/
Item Number:0080-G (online)
CGP systemNumber:000934067
 
March 13, 2018
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 99 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 32130]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12745]


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

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION


Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress; Meeting

AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) announces a meeting 
of the Advisory Committee on the Records of Congress. The committee 
advises NARA on the full range of programs, policies, and plans for the 
Center for Legislative Archives in the Office of Records Services.

DATES: June 12, 2000, from 10 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES: United States Capitol Building, Room S-211.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael L. Gillette, Director, Center 
for Legislative Archives, (202) 501-5350.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Agenda

Third Report to Congress
Electronic Records Archives
Other current issues and new business.

    The meeting is open to the public.

    Dated: May 16, 2000.
Mary Ann Hadyka,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-12745 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7515-01-P
§ 2520.104-41 Simplified annual reporting requirements for plans with fewer than 100 participants. ( a ) *General.* ( 1 ) Under the authority of section 104(a)(2)(A), the Secretary of Labor may prescribe simplified annual reporting for employee pension benefit plans with fewer than 100 participants.
( 2 ) Under the authority of section 104(a)(3), the Secretary of Labor may provide a limited exemption for any employee welfare benefit plan with respect to certain annual reporting requirements.
( b ) *Application.* The administrator of an employee pension or welfare benefit plan which covers fewer than 100 participants at the beginning of the plan year and the administrator of an employee pension or welfare benefit plan described in § 2520.103-1(d) may file the simplified annual report described in paragraph (c) of this section in lieu of the annual report described in § 2520.103-1(b).
( c ) *Contents.* The administrator of an employee pension or welfare benefit plan described in paragraph (b) of this section shall file, in the manner described in § 2520.104a-5, a completed Form 5500 “Annual Return/Report of Employee Benefit Plan” including, if applicable, the information described in § 2520.103-1(f) or, to the extent eligible, a completed Form 5500-SF “Short Form Annual Return/Report of Small Employee Benefit Plan,” and any required schedules or statements prescribed by the instructions to the applicable form, and, unless waived by § 2520.104-44 or § 2520.104-46, a report of an independent qualified public accountant meeting the requirements of § 2520.103-1(b).
[43 FR 10150, Mar. 10, 1978, as amended at 45 FR 51446, Aug. 1, 1980; 54 FR 8629, Mar. 1, 1989; 65 FR 21084, Apr. 19, 2000; 65 FR 62973, Oct. 19, 2000; 78 FR 13796, Mar. 1, 2013]
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION 

 

I, James C. Clinard, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Heartland Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2004; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and we have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]; 

 

c) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

d) disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting. 

 

Date: August 12, 2004
#### § 37.50 To whom does this subpart apply?

This subpart applies to State Programs as defined in § 37.4. However, the provisions of § 37.52(b) do not apply to State Employment Security Agencies (SESAs), because the Governor's liability for any noncompliance on the part of a SESA cannot be waived.
S. Con. Res. 49 Agreed to October 4, 2007

One Hundred Tenth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,

the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns on Thursday,

October 4, 2007, or Friday, October 5, 2007, on a motion offered

pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or

his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12 noon on Monday, October 15, 2007, or such other time on that day as may

be specified by its Majority Leader or his designee in the motion

to recess or adjourn, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant

to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.

SEC. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate, after consultation

with the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members

of the Senate to reassemble at such place and time as he may

designate if, in his opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

SAUL AGUILAR-SAGUN,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 10-30191

D.C. No. 3:09-cr-05601-BHS

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 12, 2011** 

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges. 

Saul Aguilar-Sagun appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute heroin,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction under 

FILED

JUL 15 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-30191

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we dismiss. 

Aguilar-Sagun pleaded guilty pursuant to a written agreement that included

an appeal waiver. He contends that his appeal waiver was not knowing and

voluntary because his attorney was ineffective for allowing him to enter a guilty

plea that did not preserve his ability to appeal the district court’s denial of his

motion to suppress. As a general rule, we do not review challenges to the

effectiveness of defense counsel on direct appeal unless (1) the record on appeal is

sufficiently developed to permit determination of the issue, or (2) the legal

representation is so inadequate that it obviously denies a defendant his Sixth

Amendment right to counsel. See United States v. Jeronimo, 398 F.3d 1149, 1155-

56 (9th Cir. 2005). Neither exception applies to this case. Based on the record

before this court on direct appeal, we conclude that Aguilar-Sagun’s appeal waiver,

which waived any challenge to the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress,

was voluntary and enforceable. See id. at 1156-57. 

DISMISSED.
**EXHIBIT 10.80**

 

 

 

 

**MODIFICATION TO PROMISSORY NOTE**

 

 

                WHEREAS,on July 3, 1995, Lee Pharmaceuticals ("maker") and Sass DiSalvo("Holder") entered into an agreement ("Note") whereby LeePharmaceuticals was to pay to Sass DiSalvo the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars;and

 

                WHEREAS,on July 6, 1996, the parties thereto modified said Note to extend the maturitydate from July 6, 1996, until December 8, 1997, ( a copy of said Modificationto Promissory Note is attached for reference as Exhibit A); and

 

                WHEREAS,on December 8, 1997, the parties thereto modified said Note to extend thematurity date from December 8, 1997, until December 1, 1998, (a copy of saidModification to Promissory Note is attached for reference as Exhibit B); and

 

                WHEREAS,on December 1, 1998, the parties thereto modified said Note to extend thematurity date from December 1, 1998, until June 30, 1999, (a copy of saidModification to Promissory Note is attached for reference as Exhibit C); and

 

                WHEREAS,on June 30, 1999, the parties thereto modified said Note to extend the maturitydate from June 30, 1999, until June 30, 2000, (a copy of said Modification toPromissory Note is attached for reference as Exhibit D); and

 

                WHEREAS,on June 30, 2000, the parties thereto modified said Note to extend the maturitydate from June 30, 2000, until December 1, 2001, (a copy of said Modificationto Promissory Note is attached for reference as Exhibit E); and

 

                WHEREAS,the parties thereto now desire to further modify said Note and Modification;

 

                NOW,THEREFORE, the parties modify said Note and Modification as follows:

 

                1.             The maturity date of the Note isextended from December 1, 2001, until December 1, 2002.

 

                2.             All other terms and conditions ofthe Note remain the same.

 

 

 

                Datedthis 14TH day of NOVEMBER, 2001

 

 

 

 

|   | RONALD G. LEE                      |
|--------|------------------------------------|
|   | Lee Pharmaceuticals                |
|   | By:  Ronald G. Lee, President |
|   |                               |
|   |                               |
|   |                               |
|   | SASS DI SALVO                      |
|   | Sass DiSalvo                       |
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 49 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 49

    Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 4, 2007

   Mr. Reid submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
    Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That when the Senate recesses or adjourns on Thursday, October 4, 2007, 
or Friday, October 5, 2007, on a motion offered pursuant to this 
concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand 
recessed or adjourned until 12 noon on Monday, October 15, 2007, or 
such other time on that day as may be specified by its Majority Leader 
or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time 
of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2.  The Majority Leader of the Senate, after consultation with 
the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the 
Senate to reassemble at such place and time as he may designate if, in 
his opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
                                 <all>
```