alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 51-7.2 Early involvement in private, State, and local activities requiring Federal approval. ( a ) 40 CFR 1501.2(d) requires agencies to provide for early involvement in actions which, while planned by private applicants or other non-Federal entities, require some sort of Federal approval. Pursuant to the JWOD Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c), the Committee for Purchase from People who are Blind or Severely Disabled makes the determination as to which qualified nonprofit agency serving persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities will furnish designated products and services to the Government.
( b ) To implement the requirements of 40 CFR 1501.2(d) with respect to these actions, the Committee staff shall consult as required with other appropriate parties to initiate and coordinate the necessary environmental analysis. The Executive Director shall determine on the basis of information submitted by private agencies and other non-Federal entities or generated by the Committee whether the proposed action is one that normally does not require an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement (EIS) as set forth in § 51-7.4, or is one that requires an environmental assessment as set forth in 40 CFR 1501.4.
( c ) To facilitate compliance with these requirements, private agencies and other non-Federal entities are expected to: ( 1 ) Contact the Committee staff as early as possible in the planning process for guidance on the scope and level of environmental information required to be submitted in support of their request;
( 2 ) Conduct any studies which are deemed necessary and appropriate by the Committee to determine the impact of the proposed action on the human environment;
( 3 ) Consult with appropriate Federal, regional, State and local agencies and other potentially interested parties during preliminary planning stages to ensure that all environmental factors are identified;
( 4 ) Submit applications for all Federal, regional, State and local approvals as early as possible in the planning process;
( 5 ) Notify the Committee as early as possible of all other Federal, regional, State, local and Indian tribe actions required for project completion so that the Committee may coordinate all Federal environmental reviews; and
( 6 ) Notify the Committee of all known parties potentially affected by or interested in the proposed action.
[56 FR 48986, Sept. 26, 1991, as amended at 59 FR 16777, Apr. 8, 1994]
#### § 54.1021 Record retention for the 5G Fund.

A recipient authorized to receive 5G Fund support and its agents are required to retain any documentation prepared for, or in connection with, the award of the 5G Fund support for a period of not less than ten (10) years after the date on which the recipient receives its final disbursement of 5G Fund support.
No. 11-5255.

#### Cox *v.*Ayers, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
Belknap

No. 80-284

#### Elliott W. Taylor *& a.*v. Robert H. Gagne

November 16, 1981

*Decker, Fitzgerald & Sessler P.A,*of Laconia *(David R. Decker*on the brief), by brief for the plaintiffs.

*Nighswander, Lord, Martin & KillKelley,*of Laconia *(Walter L. Mitchell*on the brief), by brief for the defendant.

Per curiam.

In this appeal, the plaintiffs challenge the adequacy of damages which the Superior Court *(Batchelder,*J.) awarded to them as a result of the defendant contractor’s failure to fulfill his obligations under a purchase and sale agreement entered into by the parties. We find no error and affirm.

On May 26, 1977, the plaintiffs purchased an unfinished house from the defendant. The purchase and sale agreement obligated the defendant to finish the house and also to make certain improvements to the property, including landscaping. The plaintiffs moved into the house when it was substantially completed, but disputes subsequently arose relating to the completion of the project, and the plaintiffs commenced this action in April 1979.

During a lengthy trial, the plaintiffs presented much testimony from contractors, landscapers and architects regarding the front and backyard, the swimming pool, and the house. Nonetheless, after the defendant completed presentation of his evidence, the plaintiffs sought to present additional evidence regarding the retaining walls of the house. The trial judge denied the plaintiffs’ request to present this evidence because he was of the opinion that *949such testimony should have been presented during the plaintiffs’ case-in-chief.

Although the court awarded the plaintiffs a net verdict in excess of $17,000, he ruled that the plaintiffs had not met their burden on many of their claims. He awarded damages on those claims where the burden had been met, listing the unfinished or defective items that were supported by the evidence and which were *“generally”*the basis for the court’s ultimate award.

On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the award is inadequate in view of the evidence presented. They also contend that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the rebuttal testimony of their witness.

 All of the issues raised by the plaintiffs are based on findings and rulings that were within the discretion of the trial court. Our standard of review is to determine whether a reasonable man could have reached the same decision as the trial court on the basis of the evidence before it. *Sargent Lake Ass’n v. Dane,*118 N.H. 720, 722, 393 A.2d 559, 561 (1978). We hold that a reasonable person could have decided as the trial court did, and therefore affirm the trial court’s findings.

*Affirmed.*

Batchelder, J., did not participate.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4341 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4341

    To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to qualify additional 
    institutions for programs under part B of title III of that Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 4, 1994

  Mr. Jacobs introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to qualify additional 
    institutions for programs under part B of title III of that Act.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965.

    Section 322(2) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1061(2)) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(2)'';
            (2) by inserting ``or that meets the requirements of 
        subparagraph (B)'' after ``was established prior to 1964''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
            ``(B) In the case of any State within which no institution 
        meets the requirements of subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, 
        an institution that meets the requirements of such subparagraph 
        except that it was established during or after 1964, but prior 
        to 1978, shall be treated as meeting the requirements of 
        subparagraph (A).''.

                                 <all>
```
(211) 

II. COMMITTEE ACTIONS AND FILINGS OF 

THE PARTIES PRIOR TO THE AUGUST 4, 

2010 HEARING ON PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS 

a. Discovery Matters 

iii. Motion to Compel 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
282 
283 
284 
285 
286 
287 
288 
289 
290 
291 
292 
293 
294 
295 
296 
297 
298
Exhibit 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Y3K Secure  Enterprises  Software,
Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"),on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending
September 30, 2003 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  (the
"Report"),  I, Leon  Caldwell,  Treasurer,  certify,  pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to my knowledge:

      (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/ Leon Caldwell
-----------------
Leon Caldwell
Treasurer
May 11, 2004


                                       51
§ 32.4520 Additional paid-in capital. ( a ) This account shall include the difference between the net proceeds (including discount, premium and stock issuance expense) received from the issuance of capital stock and the amount includable in Account 4510, Capital Stock, unless such difference results in a debit balance for that class of stock, in which case the amount shall be charged to Account 4550, Retained Earnings.
( b ) This account shall also include gains arising from the retirement and cancellation of capital stock. Losses from the retirement and cancellation of capital stock shall be charged to this account to the extent that there exist credits in this account for the same class of stock; otherwise to Account 4550.
§ 54.417 Recordkeeping requirements. ( a ) Eligible telecommunications carriers must maintain records to document compliance with all Commission and state requirements governing the Lifeline and Tribal Link Up program for the three full preceding calendar years and provide that documentation to the Commission or Administrator upon request. Eligible telecommunications carriers must maintain the documentation required in §§ 54.404 (b)(11), 54.410(b), 54.410 (c), 54.410(d), and 54.410(f) for as long as the subscriber receives Lifeline service from that eligible telecommunications carrier, but for no less than the three full preceding calendar years.
( b ) Prior to the effective date of the rules, if an eligible telecommunications carrier provides Lifeline discounted wholesale services to a reseller, it must obtain a certification from that reseller that it is complying with all Commission requirements governing the Lifeline and Tribal Link Up program. Beginning on the effective date of the rules, the eligible telecommunications carrier must retain the reseller certification for the three full preceding calendar years and provide that documentation to the Commission or Administrator upon request.
( c ) Non-eligible telecommunications carrier resellers that purchased Lifeline discounted wholesale services to offer discounted services to low-income consumers prior to the effective date of the rules, must maintain records to document compliance with all Commission requirements governing the Lifeline and Tribal Link Up program for the three full preceding calendar years and provide that documentation to the Commission or Administrator upon request.
[80 FR 40935, July 14, 2015]
§ 22.971 Obligation to abate unacceptable interference. ( a ) *Strict Responsibility.* Any licensee who, knowingly or unknowingly, directly or indirectly, causes or contributes to causing unacceptable interference to a non-cellular part 90 of this chapter licensee in the 800 MHz band, as defined in § 22.970, shall be strictly accountable to abate the interference, with full cooperation and utmost diligence, in the shortest time practicable. Interfering licensees shall consider all feasible interference abatement measures, including, but not limited to, the remedies specified in the interference resolution procedures set forth in § 22.972(c). This strict responsibility obligation applies to all forms of interference, including out-of-band emissions and intermodulation.
( b ) *Joint and several responsibility.* If two or more licensees knowingly or unknowingly, directly or indirectly, cause or contribute to causing unacceptable interference to a non-cellular part 90 of this chapter licensee in the 800 MHz band, as defined in § 22.970, such licensees shall be jointly and severally responsible for abating interference, with full cooperation and utmost diligence, in the shortest practicable time. ( 1 ) This joint and several responsibility rule requires interfering licensees to consider all feasible interference abatement measures, including, but not limited to, the remedies specified in the interference resolution procedures set forth in § 22.972(c). This joint and several responsibility rule applies to all forms of interference, including out-of-band emissions and intermodulation.
( 2 ) Any licensee that can show that its signal does not directly or indirectly, cause or contribute to causing unacceptable interference to a non-cellular part 90 of this chapter licensee in the 800 MHz band, as defined in this chapter, shall not be held responsible for resolving unacceptable interference. Notwithstanding, any licensee that receives an interference complaint from a public safety/CII licensee shall respond to such complaint consistent with the interference resolution procedures set forth in this chapter.
[69 FR 67834, Nov. 22, 2004, as amended at 70 FR 76707, Dec. 28, 2005]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             124
<SECURITIES>                                     13525
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,315,275
<RECEIVABLES>                                  677,981
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                            163,047
<PP&E>                                         163,633
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,448,070
<SHORT-TERM>                                   125,000
<PAYABLES>                                           0
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                               9,600
<LONG-TERM>                                    400,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    300,000
<COMMON>                                        88,888
<OTHER-SE>                                     478,791
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,448,070
<TRADING-REVENUE>                              314,909
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                            70,442
<COMMISSIONS>                                2,059,756
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,745
<COMPENSATION>                               1,189,208
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                390,481
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     390,481
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   240,143
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.027
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.027



</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

§ 1.937 Repetitious or conflicting applications. ( a ) Where the Commission has, for any reason, dismissed with prejudice or denied any license application in the Wireless Radio Services, or revoked any such license, the Commission will not consider a like or new application involving service of the same kind to substantially the same area by substantially the same applicant, its successor or assignee, or on behalf of or for the benefit of the original parties in interest, until after the lapse of 12 months from the effective date of final Commission action.
( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) If an appeal has been taken from the action of the Commission dismissing with prejudice or denying any application in the Wireless Radio Services, or if the application is subsequently designated for hearing, a like application for service of the same type to the same area, in whole or in part, filed by that applicant or by its successor or assignee, or on behalf or for the benefit of the parties in interest to the original application, will not be considered until the final disposition of such appeal.
( d ) While an application is pending, any subsequent inconsistent or conflicting application submitted by, on behalf of, or for the benefit of the same applicant, its successor or assignee will not be accepted for filing.
[63 FR 68931, Dec. 14, 1998, as amended at 68 FR 25842, May 14, 2003]
Union Calendar No. 437

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4615

[Report No. 103–791]

A BILL

To make applicable the provisions of the Act comUtah Project, Utah, and for other purposes. monly known as the ‘‘Warren Act’’ to the Central

OCTOBER 3, 1994

Reported with amendments, committed to the Committee

dered to be printedof the Whole House on the State of the Union, and or-
IB

Union Calendar No. 437

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4615

[Report No. 103–791]

To make applicable the provisions of the Act commonly known as the ‘‘Warren

Act’’ to the Central Utah Project, Utah, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 21, 1994

Mr. ORTON (for himself and Ms. SHEPHERD) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

OCTOBER 3, 1994

Reported with amendments, committed to the Committee of the Whole House

on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed

[Insert the part printed in italic]

A BILL

To make applicable the provisions of the Act commonly

known as the ‘‘Warren Act’’ to the Central Utah Project,

Utah, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. APPLICATION OF THE WARREN ACT.

4 (a) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of the Interior

5 may—
2

•HR 4615 RH

1 (1) enter into contracts with private entities

2 pursuant to the Act of February 21, 1911 (com3 monly known as the ‘‘Warren Act’’) (36 Stat. 925

4 et seq., chapter 141; 43 U.S.C. 523 et seq.), for the

5 impounding, storage, and carriage of nonproject

6 water for domestic, municipal, fish and wildlife, in7 dustrial, and other beneficial purposes, using any fa8 cilities associated with the Central Utah Project,

9 Utah; and

10 (2) enter into agreements, under terms and

11 conditions authorized for contracts under such Act,

12 with appropriate officials of other Federal agencies,

13 municipalities, public water districts and agencies,

14 and States for impounding, storage, and carriage of

15 nonproject water for purposes described in para16 graph (1) using facilities referred to in such para17 graph.

18 (b) NONPROJECT WATER DEFINED.—In subsection

19 (a), the term ‘‘nonproject water’’ means water that is not

20 from a Federal Reclamation project.

21 SEC. 2. UTAH RECLAMATION MITIGATION AND CONSERVA22 TION COMMISSION.

23 Section 301(d) of Public Law 102–575 (106 Stat.

24 4626) is amended by adding the following new paragraph

25 at the end:
3

•HR 4615 RH

1 ‘‘(8) Any employee of the District or member of the

2 Board of Directors of the District may serve as a member

3 of the Commission.’’.
# Collin College

/ Published Nov. 27, 2023