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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 79 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 79

 To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to exempt pesticide rinse water 
        degradation systems from subtitle C permit requirements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 1999

Mr. Bilirakis introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to exempt pesticide rinse water 
        degradation systems from subtitle C permit requirements.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FROM SUBTITLE C PERMIT REQUIREMENT FOR PESTICIDE 
              RINSE WATER DEGRADATION SYSTEMS.

    Section 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6925) is 
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(k) Pesticide Rinse Water Degradation Systems.--(1) 
Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, a person owning or 
operating a pesticide rinse water degradation system that meets the 
criteria set forth in paragraph (2) is not subject to the requirement 
to obtain a permit under this section for the treatment or disposal of 
pesticide rinse water in such system.
    ``(2) To qualify for the exemption under paragraph (1), a pesticide 
rinse water degradation system must meet the following criteria:
            ``(A) The system uses evaporation and biological 
        degradation to treat or dispose of pesticide rinse water.
            ``(B) The system contains an above-ground tank or double-
        walled tank that can be inspected for leaks and that is a tank 
        within the meaning of such term as used in this subtitle or the 
        regulations promulgated under this subtitle.
            ``(C) The system includes a secondary containment system 
        capable of collecting and containing any leaks from the tank.
            ``(D) There is no discharge of fluid from the system.
            ``(E) The system, including the secondary containment 
        system, is protected from rainfall.
            ``(F) When the system is dismantled or any matrix or media 
        used in the tank is replaced, if the matrix or media contains 
        any hazardous waste, the matrix or media is treated, stored, or 
        disposed of in accordance with this subtitle and regulations 
        promulgated under this subtitle.
    ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `pesticide rinse 
water degradation system' means a system for treating or disposing of 
water used to rinse pesticide application equipment.
    ``(4) This subsection shall apply with respect to pesticide rinse 
water degradation systems in operation as of January 1, 1987.''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 126 (Thursday, June 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 40078]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16444]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Minority Business Development Agency

[Docket No. 000623192-0192-01]
RIN 0640-ZA07


Solicitation of Applications for the Minority Business Capital 
Access Policy Institute

AGENCY: Minority Business Development Agency, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) published a 
document in the Federal Register of June 8, 2000, (65 FR 36411), 
concerning solicitation of competitive applications from organizations 
seeking to establish a Minority Business Capital Access Policy 
Institute (MBCAPI). This document extends the closing date of the award 
to no later than 5:00 p.m. on July 24, 2000.

DATES: The closing date for receipt of applications has been extended 
until July 24, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Applicants must submit one signed original plus two (2) 
copies of the application. Completed application packages must be 
submitted to: Office of Financial Access, Room 5600, Minority Business 
Development Agency, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th & Constitution 
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Everett at (202) 482-1940.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register issue of June 8, 
2000, in FR Doc. 65-111, on page 36412, in the first column (second 
paragraph), change the date from July 10, 2000 to July 24, 2000. 
Applications will be accepted until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.

Glenn Clark,
Financial Management Officer, Minority Business Development Agency.
Juanita E. Berry,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Minority Business Development Agency.
[FR Doc. 00-16444 Filed 6-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-21-P
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Jacob Inbar,Chief Executive Officer of AML Communications Inc., (the “Company”), certifythat:

1.                 I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-KSB of AML Communications, Inc.;

2.                 Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                 Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)          Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)         Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)          Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

5.                 The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)          All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)         Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| Date: June 29, 2007 |
|--------------------------|
| /s/ JACOB INBAR          |   |
| Jacob Inbar,             |
| Chief Executive  Officer |

 

----
#### § 302-4.402 Will I be required to document the circumstances causing the delay?

Yes, you must provide a statement on your travel claim explaining the circumstances that caused the delay.
No. 11-145.

#### Nyounai, aka Ngonyounai *v.*Holder, Attorney General.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 127 (Friday, June 30, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40491-40492]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16543]


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

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD

12 CFR Part 997

[No. 2000-15]
RIN 3069-AA92


Determination of Appropriate Present-Value Factors Associated 
With Payments Made by the Federal Home Loan Banks to the Resolution 
Funding Corporation; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance Board.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Housing Finance Board (Finance Board) published in 
the Federal Register of April 3, 2000, a final rule implementing 
provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Gramm-Leach-Bliley) that 
changed the methodology for determining the amount of the payments to 
be made by the Federal Home Loan Banks (Banks) to the Resolution 
Funding Corporation (REFCORP). The final rule omitted a reference to 
the value of an annuity, as referenced in Gramm-Leach-Bliley, in one 
section of the rule. This document corrects that omission.

EFFECTIVE DATES: Effective on June 30, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas E. Joseph, Attorney-Advisor, 
(202) 408-2512, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#563c392533263e2216303e303478313920"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="97fdf8e4f2e7ffe3d7f1fff1f5b9f0f8e1">[email protected]</span></a>, or by regular mail at the Federal 
Housing Finance Board, 1777 F Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006. A 
telecommunication device for deaf persons (TDD) is available at (202) 
408-2579.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Need for Correction

    In FR Doc. 00-8116, published in the Federal Register on April 3, 
2000 (65 FR 17435), the Finance Board added new

[[Page 40492]]

part 997 to its regulations to implement provisions of Gramm-Leach-
Bliley, Pub. L. No. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, 1455-56 (Nov. 12, 1999) 
related to adjustments in the end-date for the statutorily required 
annual payments made by the Banks to REFCORP. In Sec. 997.5 of this new 
part, the annual value of the annuity referenced in section 607 of 
Gramm-Leach-Bliley was inadvertently omitted. To avoid any confusion as 
to the meaning of the rule, this correction adds the relevant value to 
the final rule.

Correction of Publication

    For the reasons set forth above, the Finance Board hereby corrects 
FR Doc. 00-8116, published in the Federal Register on April 3, 2000 (65 
FR 17435) as follows.


Sec. 997.5  [Corrected]

    1. On page 17438, in the third column, add to Sec. 997.5, paragraph 
(a), line 8, the phrase ``of $300 million per year'' after the word 
``annuity.''

    Dated: June 22, 2000.

    By the Board of Directors of the Federal Housing Finance Board.
Bruce A. Morrison,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. 00-16543 Filed 6-29-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6725-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                   12,945,383
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                       1,286,904
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                     1,006,154
<OTHER-ASSETS>                               1,099,522
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,337,963
<COMMON>                                     2,255,811
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          1,619,225
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               3,875,036
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         6,655,750<F1>
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             510,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  169,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               5,128,177
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>               16,337,963
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    3,289,505
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            76,269
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   2,659,814
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   2,736,083
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        553,422
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             260,287
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 813,709
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       472,098
<NET-INCOME>                                   341,611
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  341,611
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       341,574
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      444,018
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                       (122,862)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.45
<FN>
<F1>See Note F to financial statements; includes long term note payable.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
250 E Street, SW

Washington, D.C. 20525

202-606-5000 | 800-942-2677 | TTY 800-833-3722

To: Deborah Jeffrey

Inspector General 

From: Lori Giblin/s/

Chief Risk Officer 

Subject: High-Dollar Overpayments for the quarter ending December 31, 2017

Date: January 11, 2018

The purpose of this document is to comply with the High-Dollar overpayments' reporting 

requirements addressed in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) implementation 

guidance M-15-02 Circular A-123, Appendix C, dated October 20, 2014, relative to

Executive Order 13520. The OMB implementation guidance makes necessary for agency 

heads to submit reports quarterly on high-dollar overpayments to the Office of Inspector 

General.

The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) identifies high-dollar 

overpayments through improper payments testing, which was completed in Q4 of FY2017. 

Therefore, during the reporting period covering 10/01/2017 through 12/31/2017, CNCS 

has not identified any high-dollar overpayments. 

This report upholds the Corporation’s commitment to carrying out the Executive Order’s 

goals of eliminating payment errors. Reducing improper payments remains vital for the 

Corporation. We continue to monitor programs in order to reduce the amount of 

overpayments.
#### § 102-79.20 What standard must Executive agencies promote when assigning space?

Executive agencies must promote the optimum use of space for each assignment at an economical cost to the Government, provide quality workspace that is delivered and occupied in a timely manner, and assign space based on mission requirements.
17 March 2016

371P15

#### State v. Wayne Allen Davis

Defs PDR under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA15-220)

Denied
S90A0112.

#### DORSEY v. THE STATE.

(387 SE2d 889)

Clarke, Chief Justice.

Ed Willie Dorsey was convicted of malice murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appeals. We affirm.1

1. Construed in a light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence showed that Ed Willie Dorsey argued with his wife about her “running around.” While they argued, there were several children in the house watching television. Dorsey threatened his wife. He went to a closet and took out a gun. He fired one shot into the floor; then shot his wife in the face. After he shot her, he asked one of the children to call the police. He then went to the kitchen, got a butcher knife, and placed it near his wife’s hand.

The evidence produced at trial was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find the defendant guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

2. Dorsey contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a photograph that depicted the victim at the scene of the murder. The photograph showed the position and condition of the victim immediately after she had been shot. Her body had not been tampered with in any way. The photograph was therefore admissible under the rule of *Brown v. State,*250 Ga. 862 (302 SE2d 347) (1983).

3. Dorsey next contends that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to ask Dorsey during cross-examination, “So, everybody’s lying about this whole thing but you, is that right?” He contends that the question improperly calls for the defendant to make credibility determinations about the testimony of other witnesses. We do not agree. The state may challenge the defendant’s truthfulness on cross-examination. While the form of the question was somewhat argumentative, we cannot conclude that the court erred in allowing it.

4. Dorsey contends that the court erred in failing to charge the jury on “involuntary manslaughter in the commission of a legal act.” Our review of the charges given reveals that the charges given on voluntary and involuntary manslaughter were full and complete and allowed the jury to consider every possible theory of the crime. We find no error.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*810Decided February 7, 1990.

*Fierman & Nolan, James A. Nolan,*for appellant.

*Joseph H. Briley, District Attorney, James L. Cline, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Richard C. Litwin,*for appellee.

1

 The crime occurred on April 9, 1989. Appellant was indicted on May 26, 1989. He was convicted of murder on July 17, 1989 and sentenced to life imprisonment the same day. The notice of appeal was filed August 16, 1989. The case was docketed in this court October 24, 1989. The case is ripe for decision following oral argument on January 9, 1990.
#### § 109-48.000 Scope of part.
#### § 301-31.11 May my agency pay me a per diem allowance instead of actual expenses?

No.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 818

AN ACT

To amend the Small Business Act to authorize a

mitigation measures by small businesses.pilot program for the implementation of disaster
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 818

AN ACT

To amend the Small Business Act to authorize a pilot program for the implementation of disaster mitigation measures by small businesses.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 818 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Disaster Mitigation

3 Coordination Act of 1999’’.

4 SEC. 2. PILOT PROGRAM.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7(b)(1) of the Small Busi6 ness Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)) is amended—

7 (1) in subparagraph (B), by adding ‘‘and’’ at

8 the end; and

9 (2) by adding at the end the following:

10 ‘‘(C) during fiscal years 2000 through

11 2004, to establish a disaster mitigation pro12 gram to make such loans (either directly or in

13 cooperation with banks or other lending institu14 tions through agreements to participate on an

15 immediate or deferred (guaranteed) basis) as

16 the Administrator may determine to be nec17 essary or appropriate to enable small business

18 concerns to implement mitigation measures pur19 suant to a formal disaster mitigation program

20 established by the Federal Emergency Manage21 ment Agency, except that no loan or guarantee

22 may be extended to a small business concern

23 under this subparagraph unless the Administra24 tion finds the concern is otherwise unable to ob25 tain credit for the purposes described in this

26 subparagraph.’’.
3

•HR 818 EH

1 (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section

2 20 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 note) is

3 amended by adding at the end the following:

4 ‘‘(f) DISASTER MITIGATION PILOT PROGRAM.—The

5 following program levels are authorized for loans under

6 section 7(b)(1)(C):

7 ‘‘(1) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.

8 ‘‘(2) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.

9 ‘‘(3) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.

10 ‘‘(4) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.

11 ‘‘(5) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.’’.

12 (c) EVALUATION.—

13 (1) IN GENERAL.—On January 31, 2003, the

14 Administrator of the Small Business Administration

15 shall submit to the Committees on Small Business

16 of the House of Representatives and the Senate a

17 report on the effectiveness of the pilot program au18 thorized by section 7(b)(1)(C) of the Small Business

19 Act, as added by subsection (a) of this section.

20 (2) CONTENTS OF REPORT.—The report shall

21 include—

22 (1) information relating to—

23 (A) the areas served under the pilot pro24 gram;
4

•HR 818 EH

1 (B) the number and dollar value of loans

2 made under the pilot program; and

3 (C) the estimated savings to the Federal

4 Government resulting from the pilot program;

5 and

6 (2) such other information as the Administrator

7 determines to be appropriate for evaluating the pilot

8 program.

Passed the House of Representatives March 2,

1999.

Attest:

Clerk.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1289

KENDA R. KIRBY , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Office of the Attorney General , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Terrence W. Boyle , District Judge. ( 5:17

- cv
- 00371

- BO )

Submitted : June 14, 2018 Decided: June 18, 2018

Before TRAXLER, DUNCAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Kenda R. Kirby , Appellant Pro Se

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kenda R. Kirby appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her civil complai nt . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Kirby v. North Carolina , No. 5:17

- cv
00371

- BO (E.D.N.C. Feb. 12, 2018) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED