alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1203.2 Application of this part. ( a ) This part applies to each program for which Federal financial assistance is authorized under a law administered by ACTION, including the types of Federal financial assistance listed in appendix A to this part. It also applies to money paid, property transferred, or other Federal financial assistance extended after the effective date of this part pursuant to an application approved before that effective date. This part does not apply to: ( 1 ) Federal financial assistance by way of insurance or guaranty contracts;
( 2 ) Money paid, property transferred, or other assistance extended before the effective date of this part, except when the assistance was subject to the title VI regulations of an agency whose responsibilities are now exercised by ACTION;
( 3 ) Assistance to any individual who is the ultimate beneficiary; or
( 4 ) Employment practices, under a program, of an employer, employment agency, or labor organization, except to the extent described in § 1203.4(c). The fact that a type of Federal financial assistance is not listed in Appendix A to this part does not mean, if title VI is otherwise applicable, that a program is not covered. Other types of Federal financial assistance under statutes now in force or hereinafter enacted may be added to Appendix A to this part.
( b ) In a program receiving Federal financial assistance in the form, or for the acquisition, of real property or an interest in real property, to the extent that rights to space on, over, or under that property are included, the nondiscrimination requirement of this part extends to a facility located wholly or in part in that space.
[39 FR 27322, July 26, 1974, as amended at 68 FR 51387, Aug. 26, 2003]
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 30, 2021. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, December 30, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A22D0169. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH v. HOUSTON HOSPITALS, INC.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 2021V124331
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary Gene KENNEDY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-11334.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 2, 2004.

*558Michael Gill, US Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Gary Gene Kennedy, Mesquite, TX, pro se.

Before SMITH, DEMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gary Gene Kennedy on direct appeal has filed what he terms a *“quasi-Anders”*brief. He argues that, based upon extra-circuit law and the district court’s alleged misapplication of the sentencing guidelines, the appeal-waiver provision in Kennedy’s plea agreement is unenforceable and should be severed from the plea agreement. Counsel recognizes, however, that this court’s jurisprudence and the plain language of the waiver preclude an appeal based upon the enhancement of his offense level under the sentencing guidelines. Counsel therefore asserts that, if we decide the appeal waiver is enforceable, there are no nonfrivolous issues for appeal, and he requests permission to withdraw pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

We have reviewed the record and, based upon this court’s jurisprudence, the guilty plea and appeal waiver were knowing and voluntary, and Kennedy is precluded from arguing that his sentence was improperly enhanced under United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2K2.1(b). *See United States v. Robinson,*187 F.3d 516, 517 (5th Cir. 1999); *United States v. Melancon,*972 F.2d 566, 567, 568 (5th Cir.1992). We note that, even under our sister circuits’ jurisprudence regarding the enforceability of appeal waivers, we would conclude that the appeal waiver provision is enforceable. *See United States v. Teeter,*257 F.3d 14, 24, 25-27 (1st Cir.2001); *United States v. De-La-Cruz Castro,*299 F.3d 5, 12-14 (1st Cir.2002); *United States v. Rosa,*123 F.3d 94, 96, 101-02 (2d Cir.1997); *United States v. Goodman,*165 F.3d 169, 174-75 (2d Cir.1999); *United States v. Khattak,*273 F.3d 557, 563 (3d Cir.2001); *United States v. Brown,*232 F.3d 399, 403 (4th Cir.2000); *United States v. Andis,*333 F.3d 886, 890, 891-92 (8th Cir.2003).

Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cíe. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
# EUR-Lex - 12008E295 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E295

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - PART SIX: INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS - TITLE I: INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS - Chapter 2: Legal acts of the Union, adoption procedures and other provisions - Section 2: Procedures for the adoption of acts and other provisions - Article 295 **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0175 - 0175 *

Article 295

The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission shall consult each other and by common agreement make arrangements for their cooperation. To that end, they may, in compliance with the Treaties, conclude interinstitutional agreements which may be of a binding nature.

--------------------------------------------------
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 7 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                  S. 7

   To authorize an additional district judgeship for the district of 
                                 Idaho.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 23 (legislative day, January 3), 2023

 Mr. Crapo (for himself and Mr. Risch) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To authorize an additional district judgeship for the district of 
                                 Idaho.

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

SECTION 1. DISTRICT JUDGESHIP FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO.

    (a) In General.--The President shall appoint, by and with the 
advice and consent of the Senate, 1 additional district judge for the 
district of Idaho.
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table in section 
133(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking the item 
relating to Idaho and inserting the following:

``Idaho....................................................         3''.
 

                                 <all>
```
§ 1336.67 Security and collateral: Responsibilities of the Loan Administrator. The Loan Administrator may require any applicant for a loan from the RLF to provide such collateral as the Loan Administrator determines to be necessary to secure the loan. (Section 803A(b)(3)) ( a ) *As a Credit Factor.* The availability of collateral security normally is considered an important factor in making loans. The types and amount of collateral security required should be governed by the relative strengths and weaknesses of other credit factors. The taking of collateral as security should be considered with respect to each loan. Collateral security should be sufficient to provide the lender reasonable protection from loss in the case of adversity, but such security or lack thereof should not be used as the primary basis for deciding whether to extend credit.
( b ) *Security Interests.* Security interests which may be taken by the lender include, but are not limited to, liens on real or personal property, including leasehold interests; assignments of income and accounts receivable; and liens on inventory or proceeds of inventory sales as well as marketable securities and cash collateral accounts. ( 1 ) *Motor vehicles.* Liens ordinarily should be taken on licensed motor vehicles, boats or aircraft purchased hereunder in order to be able to transfer title easily should the lender need to declare a default or repossess the property.
( 2 ) *Insurance on property secured.* Hazard insurance up to the amount of the loan or the replacement value of the property secured (whichever is less) must be taken naming the lender as beneficiary. Such insurance includes fire and extended coverage, public liability, property damage, and other appropriate types of hazard insurance.
( 3 ) *Appraisals.* Real property serving as collateral security must be appraised by a qualified appraiser. For all other types of property, a valuation shall be made using any recognized, standard technique (including standard reference manuals), and this valuation shall be described in the loan file.
( c ) *Additional security.* The lender may require collateral security or additional security at any time during the term of the loan if after review and monitoring an assessment indicates the need for such security.
EXHIBIT 10.65.1

                       AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROMISSORY NOTE

         This AMENDMENT NO. 1 (the  "Amendment")  is made and entered into as of
March 8,  2000,  by and  between  SSE  TELECOM,  INC.,  a  Delaware  corporation
("Lender") and GEORGE M. WALLEY (the "Borrower").

         WHEREAS,  Lender issued to Borrower a Promissory Note dated as of March
8, 1999 (the "Note"); and

         WHEREAS,  Lender and Borrower  agree to amend  certain  sections of the
Note as set forth below.

         NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, Lender and Borrower agree as follows:

1.       Amendment.  Section 1 of the Note is hereby amended and restated in its
         entirety to read as follows:

                  Principal Repayment.  The outstanding  principal amount of the
                  Loan shall be subject to scheduled repayments on the dates and
                  in the amounts listed below.

                            Repayment Date               Repayment Amount
                            --------------               ----------------
                             March 8, 2000               $125,000.00 (Paid)

                           December 31, 2001             $25,000.00

2.       Miscellaneous.

2.1      This  Amendment  shall be  appended to the Note and deemed to be a part
         thereof.

2.2      Except as modified by this  Amendment,  the Note  remains in full force
         and effect.

2.3      This Amendment may be executed in counterparts  with the same force and
         effect as if each of the signatories had executed the same document.

         IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  Lender  and  Borrower  have duly  executed  this
Amendment as of the day and year first set forth above.

                                    SSE TELECOM, INC.

                                    By:
                                         ---------------------------------------

                                    Name:  Lee Blachowicz
                                        ----------------------------------------

                                    Title:  President and CEO
                                            ------------------------------------



By:
     ---------------------------------------
Name:  Michael Walley


                                       47
§ 9.17 Public inspection of documents. ( a ) Upon receipt of the plan of operations the Superintendent shall publish a notice in the Federal Register advising the availability of the plan for public review.
( b ) Any document required to be submitted pursuant to the regulations in this part shall be made available for public inspection at the Office of Superintendent during normal business hours. The availability of such records for inspection shall be governed by the rules and regulations found at 43 CFR part 2.
29–008

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 1st Session 108–402

WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE 

REPORT TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 2673, CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

DECEMBER 8, 2003.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 473] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 473, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution waives all points of order against the conference 

report to accompany H.R. 2673, the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2004, and against its consideration. The rule further provides 

that the conference report shall be considered as read. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to clause 3(b) of House rule XIII the results of each 

record vote on an amendment or motion to report, together with 

the names of those voting for and against, are printed below: 

Rules Committee record vote No. 220

Date: December 8, 2003. 

Measure: Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 2673, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004. 

Motion by: Mr. Frost. 

Summary of motion: To amend the rule to make in order a concurrent resolution that would direct the enrolling clerk to reinsert 

Senate language blocking the Labor Department from issuing rules 

taking away a worker’s right to overtime pay. 

Results: Defeated 3 to 8. 

2

Vote by Members: Goss—Nay; Linder—Nay; Diaz-Balart—Nay; 

Hastings (WA)—Nay; Myrick—Nay; Sessions—Nay; Reynolds— Nay; Frost—Yea; Slaughter—Yea; McGovern—Yea; Dreier—Nay.

Æ
#### §§ 1170.35-1170.40 [Reserved]
Searched for **http://www.cdc.gov/std/Trichomonas/STDFact-Trichomoniasis.htm**

 

19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024

*Note:* This calendar view maps the number of captures of **http://www.cdc.gov/std/Trichomonas/STDFact-Trichomoniasis.htm**, *not* how many times the site was actually updated.

Look Up URL in general Internet Archive web collection.
§ 1170.24 Preemployment inquiries. ( a ) A recipient may not, except as provided below, conduct a preemployment medical examination, make preemployment inquiry as to whether the applicant is a handicapped person, or inquire as to the nature or severity of a handicap. A recipient may, however, make preemployment inquiry into an applicant's ability to perform job-related functions.
( b ) If a recipient is taking remedial action to correct the effects of past discrimination, if a recipient is taking voluntary action to overcome the effects of conditions that resulted in limited participation in its federally assisted program or activity, or if a recipient is taking affirmative action under section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, the recipient may invite applicants for employment to indicate whether and to what extent they are handicapped, provided, that: ( 1 ) The recipient states clearly on any written questionnaire used for this purpose or makes clear orally if no written questionnaire is used that the information requested is intended for use solely in connection with its remedial action obligations or its voluntary or affirmative action efforts; and
( 2 ) The recipient states clearly that the information is being requested on a voluntary basis, that it will be kept confidential as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, that refusal to provide it will not subject the applicant or employee to any adverse treatment, and that it will be used only in accordance with this part.
( c ) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a recipient from conditioning an offer of employment on the results of a medical examination conducted prior to the employee's entrance on duty, provided, that: ( 1 ) All entering employees are subjected to such an examination regardless of handicap; and
( 2 ) The results of such an examination are used only in accordance with the requirements of this part.
( d ) Information obtained in accordance with this section as to the medical condition or history of the applicant shall be collected and maintained on separate forms that shall be accorded confidentiality as medical records, except that: ( 1 ) Supervisors and managers may be informed regarding restrictions on the work or duties of handicapped persons and regarding necessary accommodations;
( 2 ) First aid and safety personnel may be informed, where appropriate, if the condition might require emergency treatment; and
( 3 ) Government officials investigating compliance with the Act shall be provided relevant information upon request.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 13, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51041 Conference Calendar

JUAN VICENTE CADERNO, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus RUDY FRANCO, Warden of Reeves County Detention Center, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:03-CV-88

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Juan Vicente Caderno, federal prisoner # 35223-004, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his cocaine-related convictions. The district court held that while styled as a § 2241 petition, his pleading was subject to dismissal without prejudice as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Caderno has inadequately briefed the issue whether the district court erred by construing his pleading as such and instead merely recites the law pertaining to the filing of § 2241 petitions without applying it to the facts ofNo. 05-51041 -2- his case. He does not address the issues whether the § 2255 remedy is inadequate or ineffective or, alternatively, whether he meets the criteria for filing a successive § 2255 motion. He has therefore waived review of these issues. See Brinkman v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED.
CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Yanglin Soybean, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Shaocheng Xu,
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company.





Date:
                December 2, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                SHAOCHENG XUShaocheng
                XuChief
                Financial Officer
§ 1330.10 General requirements for awardees. ( a ) In carrying out a research activity under this program, an awardee must: ( 1 ) Identify one or more hypotheses or research questions;
( 2 ) Based on the hypotheses or research question identified, perform an intensive systematic study in accordance with its approved application directed toward: ( i ) New or full scientific knowledge; or
( ii ) Understanding of the subject or problem being studied.
( b ) In carrying out a development activity under this program, an awardee must create, using knowledge and understanding gained from research, models, methods, tools, systems, materials, devices, applications, or standards that are adopted by and beneficial to the target population. Development activities span one or more stages of development.
( c ) In carrying out a training activity under this program, an awardee shall conduct a planned and systematic sequence of supervised instruction that is designed to impart predetermined skills and knowledge.
( d ) In carrying out a demonstration activity under this program, an awardee shall apply results derived from previous research, testing, or practice to determine the effectiveness of a new strategy or approach.
( e ) In carrying out a utilization activity under this program, a grantee must relate research findings to practical applications in planning, policy making, program administration, and delivery of services to individuals with disabilities.
( f ) In carrying out a dissemination activity under this program, a grantee must systematically distribute information or knowledge through a variety of ways to potential users or beneficiaries.
( g ) In carrying out a technical assistance activity under this program, a grantee must provide expertise or information for use in problem-solving.
#### Rowland v. Hegeman, executor, etc., appellant.

*Evidence—conversations with a party since deceased.*

In an action against an executor, the defendant, on the direct examination of a witness, sought to prove by'him, from the admissions of the plaintiff, that a certain agreement existed between the plaintiff and the testator. The plaintiff, on cross-examination, asked the witness whether he had ever conversed with the testator concerning the terms of his agreement with the plaintiff, and whether the terms thereof as stated by the testator agreed with those which the witness had sworn were stated to him by the plaintiff. The witness answered in the affirmative. *Held,*that this, so far as it went, was additional evidence of the same facts which the defendant had already sought to prove; and therefore an exception to the evidence as being contrary to section 899 of the Code, was unavailable on appeal.

Appeal from a judgment for plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. The action was brought by Richard Rowland against Benjamin A. Hegeman as surviving executor of the will of Charles Kelsey, deceased, to recover for services rendered to testator as attorney and counselor at law.

*Horace M. Hastings,*for appellant.

*Convers & Lyman,*for respondent.

Talcott, J.

The appeal was chiefly on the ground that the decision of the referee was against the evidence. The head-note states all that is material in the opinion.

*Judgment affirmed.*
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Yanglin Soybean, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Shulin Liu, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company.





Date:
      February 17, 2009
                      By:
                      /s/
      SHULIN LIUShulin
      LiuChief
      Executive
Officer