alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  No. 03-30281

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.

v.  CR-01-00149-AJWS DANIEL CARSON LEWIS,

Defendant-Appellant. OPINION 

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court

Filed September 1, 2005

Before: Cynthia Holcomb Hall, Andrew J. Kleinfeld, and

Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Hall

COUNSEL

Teresa S. Ridle and Rebecca S. Copeland, Patton Boggs, LLP,

Anchorage, Alaska, for the defendant-appellant. 

12077
Karen Loeffler, Assistant United States Attorney, Anchorage,

Alaska, for the plaintiff-appellee.

OPINION

HALL, Senior Circuit Judge: 

We considered this case in July of 2004 and we affirmed

the convictions and the sentence. United States v. Lewis, No.

03-30281, 111 Fed.Appx. 876 (9th Cir. Sept. 24, 2004). The

Supreme Court granted certiorari, and vacated the decision

and remanded the case to us in light of United States v.

Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005). Lewis v. United States, 125

S.Ct. 1404 (2005). Because Petitioner did not challenge his

sentence on Sixth Amendment grounds in the district court,

we grant a limited remand pursuant to United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). See United

States v. Moreno-Hernandez, No. 03-30387, 2005 WL

1964483, at *8 (9th Cir. August 17, 2005) (holding that “defendants are entitled to limited remands in all pending direct

criminal appeals involving unpreserved Booker error, whether

constitutional or nonconstitutional.”). 

REMANDED.

12078 UNITED STATES v. LEWIS
#### § 102-74.450 What are the penalties for violating any rule or regulation in this subpart?

A person found guilty of violating any rule or regulation in this subpart while on any property under the charge and control of GSA shall be fined under title 18 of the United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 30 days, or both.
#### § 102-33.400 How must we report to FAIRS?

You must report to FAIRS electronically through a secure Web interface to the FAIRS application on the Internet. For additional information see *https://gsa.inl.gov/fairs/*.
§ 102-33.375 What is a FSCAP Criticality Code? ( a ) A FSCAP Criticality Code is a code assigned by DOD to indicate the type of FSCAP: Code “F” indicates a standard FSCAP; Code “E” indicates a nuclear-hardened FSCAP.
( b ) You must perpetuate a FSCAP Criticality Code on all property records and reports of excess. If the code is not annotated on the transfer document that you received when you acquired the part, you may contact the appropriate military service or query DOD's Federal Logistics Information System (FLIS) using the National Stock Number (NSN) or the part number (see *http://www.dlis.dla.mil/webflis*). For assistance in subscribing to the FLIS service, contact the WebFLIS Consumer Support Office, 1-877-352-2255.
|    |                                                                                                                                                          |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 of Impax Laboratories, Inc.; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |

|                |
|----------------|
|                |  |  |
| April 13, 2018 | By: | /s/ Paul M. Bisaro |
|           |   | Paul M. Bisaro |
|           |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

          - [Ocean Transportation Intermediary License  No.  1929-R]

Section 19c of the Shipping Act of 1984 provides that the Federal Maritime Commission (“Commission”) may revoke an ocean transportation intermediary's (“OTI”) license for failure to maintain a valid bond, proof of insurance, or other surety in accordance with subsection (b)(1) of said section. The Commission's regulations, in 46 CFR 515.26, financial responsibility is maintained on file with the Commission. Upon receipt of notice of termination of such financial responsibility the Commission shall notify the licensee, that the Commission shall, without hearing or other proceeding, revoke the license as of the termination date, unless the licensee shall have submitted valid replacement proof of financial responsibility before such termination date.

The bond issued in favor of Perez International Forwarders, Inc., was cancelled effective April 14, 2000. The Commission notified licensee that its OTI ocean freight forwarder license would be revoked unless the Commission received valid proof of financial responsibility with an effective date on or before April 14, 2000. The licensee has failed to furnish valid proof of financial responsibility.

*Therefore,*                     by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Commission as set forth in 46 CFR 501.27(g) (1999);                

*Notice is Hereby Given,*                     that OTI ocean freight forwarder license No. 1929-R issued to Perez International Forwarders, Inc. is hereby revoked effective April 14, 2000.                

*It is Ordered,*                     that OTI license No. 1929-R be returned to the Commission for cancellation.                

*It is Further Ordered,*                     that a notice of this action be published in the                     **Federal Register**                     and that a copy of this Order be served upon Perez International Forwarders, Inc.                

Sandra L. Kusumoto,

Director, Bureau of Consumer Complaints and Licensing.

[FR Doc. 00-15774 Filed 6-20-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
**AmeriCorps Office of Monitoring – Segregation of Duties Worksheet**

**Please fill out the name and title for each staff person responsible for the duties listed below. For each duty listed, mark with an ‘x’ who is responsible.**
#### § 101-1.105 Authority for FPMR System.

The FPMR system is prescribed by the Administrator of General Services under authority of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, 63 Stat. 377, as amended, and other laws and authorities specifically cited in the text.
§ 102-76.80 What is required if the costs of alterations to provide an accessible path of travel to an altered area containing a primary function are disproportionate to the costs of the overall alterations for facilities subject to the standards in § 102-76.65(a)? For facilities subject to the standards in § 102-76.65(a), if the costs of alterations to provide an accessible path of travel to an altered area containing a primary function are disproportionate to the costs of the overall alterations, the path of travel must be made accessible to the extent possible without exceeding 20 percent of the costs of the alterations to the primary function area. Priority should be given to those elements that will provide the greatest access in the following order: ( a ) An accessible route and an accessible entrance;
( b ) At least one accessible restroom for each sex or a single unisex restroom;
( c ) Accessible telephones;
( d ) Accessible drinking fountains; and
( e ) Accessible parking spaces.
#### § 102-75.980 Who is responsible for protection and maintenance expenses if there is no written agreement or no Congressional appropriation to the disposal agency?

If there is no written agreement (between the landholding agency and the disposal agency) or no Congressional appropriation to the disposal agency, the landholding agency is responsible for all protection and maintenance expenses, without any right of contribution or reimbursement from the disposal agency.
§ 102-73.255 What factors must Executive agencies consider when purchasing sites? Agencies must locate proposed Federal buildings on sites that are most advantageous to the United States. Executive agencies must consider factors such as whether the site will contribute to economy and efficiency in the construction, maintenance, and operation of the individual building, and how the proposed site relates to the Government's total space needs in the community. Prior to acquiring, constructing, or leasing buildings (or sites for such buildings), Federal agencies must use, to the maximum extent feasible, historic properties available to the agency. In site selections, Executive agencies must consider Executive Order 12072 (August 16, 1978, 43 FR 36869) and Executive Order 13006 (40 U.S.C. 3306 note). In addition, Executive agencies must consider all of the following: ( a ) Maximum utilization of Government-owned land (including excess land) whenever it is adequate, economically adaptable to requirements and properly located, where such use is consistent with the provisions of part 102-75, subpart B, of this chapter.
( b ) A site adjacent to or in the proximity of an existing Federal building that is well located and is to be retained for long-term occupancy.
( c ) The environmental condition of proposed sites prior to purchase. The sites must be free from contamination, unless it is otherwise determined to be in the best interests of the Government to purchase a contaminated site (e.g., reuse of a site under an established “Brownfields” program).
( d ) Purchase options to secure the future availability of a site.
( e ) All applicable location policies in this part and part 102-83 of this chapter.
#### STEVENS V. TRULL, Respondent, *v.*ALEXANDER BARKLEY AND OTHERS, Appellants.

*Contact for excavation*— *modification*of— *Receipts*— *explanation of.*

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the report of a referee.

The action was brought to recover for services rendered in making certain excavations for the defendants. After the making of the contract under which the work was done, it having been discovered that the amount of the rock excavation had been underestimated, it was agreed *“*that the plaintiff should go on with the contract, and should have ninety-five cents per cubic yard -for rock excavation, and be paid for other excavation at the prices named in the contract.” This action was brought to recover for portions of the rock excavation which had not been paid for. The defendants claimed that they had paid in full, and introduced in evidence, monthly estimates of their engineer, and payments made in pursuance thereof, and plaintiff’s receipts therefor, which they claim were final and conclusive. The referee allowed the plaintiff to prove that the •estimates were made *ex*parte,. and were erroneous ; and that the *645receipts were not intended to be given or received in full settlement of all claims.

With reference to the admission of this testimony, the court at General Term said: “It is urged that the receipts of payments were given on recognized and acknowledged estimates, and were in full, hence are absolutely conclusive- of the plaintiffs claim; but the receipts were open to -explanation, on both of these points, by parol proof. Those receipts were not in the nature of contracts in any respect; and it is the settled rule of law that mere receipts may be explained, as to the consideration, when the explanation is not contradictory to, but consistent with, the instrument. *(JEgleston*v. Kmoherbaoher, 6 Barb., 458; *Goon*v. Knap, 8 N. Y., 402, 405 ; *Bonesteel*v. *Klaole,*41 Barb., 435 ; *Buswell*v. *Poineer, 31*N. Y., 312; *Boardman*v. *Gaillcvrd,*8 N. Y. S. C. R. [1 Ilun], 211.) In the last case cited, the receipt was given to close account,’ and purported to be £ in full of all demands,’ but it was held that the party was not concluded by it. The court said that it was in no just sense a contract, and held it open to explanation. This case was affirmed in the Court of Appeals February 16, 1815, but not reported. The case of *Buswell*v. *Poineer (supra)*is to the same effect. (See, also, *Tobey*v; *Barber,*5 Johns., 68.) It is quite manifest, from these decisions, that the evidence given explanatory of the receipts in this case was admissible for that purpose, and that the receipts were not absolutely conclusive against the plaintiff’s claim.

It appears, therefore, that the case was one of fact for the referee, on a consideration by him of all the evidence submitted, and, according to well-settled rules, this court cannot interfere with his conclusions.”

Learned, P. J., and Bocees, J., concurred.

*P. 8. Nvoer,*for the appellant. *Smith, Bcmai'oft & Moale,*for the respondents.

Opinion by Boardman, J.

Present — Learned, P. J., Bookes and Boardman, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
§ 102-5.70 What considerations apply in making a determination to authorize home-to-work transportation for field work? Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 67866 , Aug. 22, 2024.
Agencies should consider the following when making a determination to authorize home-to-work transportation for field work: ( a ) The location of the employee's home in proximity to his/her work and to the locations where non-TDY travel is required; and
( b ) The use of home-to-work transportation for field work should be authorized only to the extent that such transportation will substantially increase the efficiency and economy of the Government.
§ 105-68.800 What are the causes for debarment? We may debar a person for— ( a ) Conviction of or civil judgment for— ( 1 ) Commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public or private agreement or transaction;
( 2 ) Violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes, including those proscribing price fixing between competitors, allocation of customers between competitors, and bid rigging;
( 3 ) Commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, tax evasion, receiving stolen property, making false claims, or obstruction of justice; or
( 4 ) Commission of any other offense indicating a lack of business integrity or business honesty that seriously and directly affects your present responsibility;
( b ) Violation of the terms of a public agreement or transaction so serious as to affect the integrity of an agency program, such as— ( 1 ) A willful failure to perform in accordance with the terms of one or more public agreements or transactions;
( 2 ) A history of failure to perform or of unsatisfactory performance of one or more public agreements or transactions; or
( 3 ) A willful violation of a statutory or regulatory provision or requirement applicable to a public agreement or transaction;
( c ) Any of the following causes: ( 1 ) A nonprocurement debarment by any Federal agency taken before October 1, 1988, or a procurement debarment by any Federal agency taken pursuant to 48 CFR part 9, subpart 9.4, before August 25, 1995;
( 2 ) Knowingly doing business with an ineligible person, except as permitted under § 105-68.120;
( 3 ) Failure to pay a single substantial debt, or a number of outstanding debts (including disallowed costs and overpayments, but not including sums owed the Federal Government under the Internal Revenue Code) owed to any Federal agency or instrumentality, provided the debt is uncontested by the debtor or, if contested, provided that the debtor's legal and administrative remedies have been exhausted;
( 4 ) Violation of a material provision of a voluntary exclusion agreement entered into under § 105-68.640 or of any settlement of a debarment or suspension action; or
( 5 ) Violation of the provisions of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 U.S.C. 701); or
( d ) Any other cause of so serious or compelling a nature that it affects your present responsibility.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-15-00436-CR

MARK STUYVESANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

28th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 14-CR-4408-A

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

December 29, 2016
/**
 * @file
 * JavaScript behaviors for announcing changes.
 */

(function ($, Drupal, once) {

  'use strict';

  /**
   * Provide Webform announce attribute behavior.
   *
   * Announces changes using [data-webform-announce] attribute.
   *
   * The announce attributes allows FAPI Ajax callbacks to easily
   * trigger announcements.
   *
   * @see \Drupal\webform\Element\WebformComputedBase::ajaxWebformComputedCallback
   *
   * @type {Drupal~behavior}
   *
   * @prop {Drupal~behaviorAttach} attach
   *   Attaches the behavior to [data-webform-announce] attribute.
   */
  Drupal.behaviors.webformAnnounce = {
    attach: function (context) {
      $(once('data-webform-announce', '[data-webform-announce]', context)).each(function () {
        Drupal.announce($(this).data('webform-announce'));
      });
    }
  };

})(jQuery, Drupal, once);
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Emtec, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending February 28 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Stephen C. Donnelly, Chief Financial 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/ Stephen C. DonnellyChief Financial OfficerApril 23, 2007




---
Natoma

Manors

Bay

Heights

Golden Pines

North

Grove

Shorecrest

Bay Point

Miami International Airport

Morningside

Grapeland Heights

Little Havana Dodge Island

Shenandoah

Virginia Key

Auburndale

Liberty City

Silver Bluff

Wynwood

Little River

Downtown

The Roads

Allapattah

Little Haiti

Overtown

Flagami

Brickell

Omni

C

O

C

O

N

U

T

G

R

O

V

E

pU

ep Er sa St edi

r et a wegdE

V

e

r

sio

n

1

2

D

e

G

r

a

n

dy’s

D

r

aft

P

l

a

n

P

r

op

o

s

a

l

Districts

12345

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 82-25 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 1 of 1
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 687

To abolish the Special Reserve of the Savings Association Insurance Fund

and to repeal the provision which would have established the Special

Reserve of the Deposit Insurance Fund had section 2704 of the Deposit

Insurance Funds Act of 1996 taken effect.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 10, 1999

Mrs. ROUKEMA (for herself and Mr. VENTO) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Banking and Financial Services

A BILL

To abolish the Special Reserve of the Savings Association

Insurance Fund and to repeal the provision which would

have established the Special Reserve of the Deposit Insurance Fund had section 2704 of the Deposit Insurance

Funds Act of 1996 taken effect.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Deposit Insurance

5 Funds Amendments Act of 1999’’.
2

•HR 687 IH

1 SEC. 2. ABOLITION OF SPECIAL RESERVE FUNDS.

2 (a) SPECIAL RESERVE OF THE SAIF.—Section

3 11(a)(6) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C.

4 1821(a)(6)) is amended by striking subparagraph (L).

5 (b) SPECIAL RESERVE OF THE DEPOSIT INSURANCE

6 FUND.—Section 2704 of the Deposit Insurance Funds

7 Act of 1996 is amended—

8 (1) by striking subsection (b);

9 (2) by striking paragraph (4) of subsection (d);

10 (3) in subsection (d)(6)(C)(i), by striking ‘‘(6)

11 and (7)’’ and inserting ‘‘(5), (6), and (7)’’; and

12 (4) by striking clause (ii) of subsection

13 (d)(6)(C) and inserting the following new clause:

14 ‘‘(ii) by redesignating paragraph (8)

15 as paragraph (5).’’.

16 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section and the amend17 ments made by this section shall be deemed to have taken

18 effect on December 31, 1998.

Æ