alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 2556.425 May a VISTA appeal their termination for cause? ( a ) Within 10 calendar days of AmeriCorps' issuance of the decision to terminate the VISTA for cause, as set forth in § 2556.420(d), the VISTA may appeal the decision to the VMSU Director. The appeal must be in writing and specify the reasons for the VISTA's disagreement with the decision.
( b ) AmeriCorps will not incur any expenses or travel allowances for the VISTA in connection with the preparation or presentation of the appeal.
( c ) The VISTA may have access to records as follows: ( 1 ) The VISTA may review any material in the VISTA's official AmeriCorps file and any relevant AmeriCorps records to the extent permitted by the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, 552a. Examples of documents that may be withheld include references obtained under pledge of confidentiality, official files of other program participants, and privileged intra-agency documents.
( 2 ) The VISTA may review relevant records in the possession of a sponsor to the extent such documents are disclosable by the sponsor under applicable freedom of information act and privacy laws.
( d ) Within 14 calendar days of receipt of any appeal by the VISTA, the VMSU Director or equivalent AmeriCorps official will issue a written appeal determination indicating the reasons for the appeal determination. The appeal determination will be final.
Devany. Dennis (OST) 

From: D.onald D. Adams [adamsdd@plattsburgh.edu] fJ;:':P-I· .~jnl1.i\fuJSl)nDJll"'!fO.~1 

Sent: ,Saturday, February 13, 2010 2:21 PM U •..'. 'v';r<\)t;!;(ffHf1 j .111, .

To: . ~'Uevany, Dennis (OST); Swanson, Brian (OST); senator@schumer.senate.go~'t\"'\i.LJ 

Cc: adamsdd@plattsburgh.edu 

Subject: DOT - decision on replacing Cape Air at Plattsburgh Air Base d.' . CO • ,k . 

(] 1.1 

J";i· 

Dear Mr. Devany and Mr. Swanson, 

I have just read the "in my opion" in today's Press Republican, February 13, and would also like to send you my feelings 

concerning Cape Air.. I would also like to state that I am in agreement with this article, and this is the reason that I am 

writing to you. I have flown numerous times to Boston with Cape Air, the last time was their early morning flight during a 

rapidly approaching snowstorm, I was totally impressed with their service, their erring on the side of caution and the way 

they treated me and the other 6 passangers. .. 

I have used Cape Air frequently in my travels to Boston and then on to Africa, and I have found them to be highly 

"customer friendly", I would be most disappointed if you would even consider bringing a new carrier into Plattsburgh. You 

have hardly given Cape Air a chance to show their capabilities and you are already throwing them out for another airline, 

which by the way does not have the superb safety record or service history. 

I will be very be very disappointed and upset that you would be considering replacing Cape Air. 

With very best regards. 

Professor Donald D. Adams 

Center for Earth and Environmental Science SUNY~Plattsburgh 

1
§ 286.190 If the Secretary, the State of Alaska, or any of the Tribal TANF eligible entities in the State of Alaska want to amend the comparability criteria, what is the process for doing so? ( a ) At such time that any of the above parties wish to amend the comparability document, the requesting party should submit a request to us, with a copy to the other parties, explaining the requested change(s) and supplying background information in support of the change(s).
( b ) After review of the request, we will make a determination on whether or not to accept the proposed change(s).
( c ) If any party wishes to appeal the decision regarding the adoption of the proposed amendment, they may appeal using the appeals process pursuant to § 286.165.
§ 270.11 When must the States report the data and other information in order to compete for bonus awards? ( a ) *All measures.* Each State must submit a list of the measures on which it is competing by February 28 of each bonus year.
( b ) *Work measures.* Each State must collect quarterly and submit semi-annually during the bonus year the data specified in § 270.6(a) as follows: ( 1 ) The data for the first and second quarters of the performance year and, if a State chooses to compete on an improvement measure, the first and second quarters of the comparison year, must be submitted by the dates we will specify in program guidance.
( 2 ) The data for the third and fourth quarters of the performance year and, if a State chooses to compete on an improvement measure, the third and fourth quarters of the comparison year, must be submitted by the dates we will specify in program guidance.
( c ) *SSP-MOE reporting.* Each State must collect quarterly its SSP-MOE Data Report as specified in § 270.6(b) and submit it: ( 1 ) At the same time as it submits its quarterly TANF Data Report; or
( 2 ) At the time it seeks to be considered for a high performance bonus as long as it submits the required data for the full period for which this determination will be made.
( d ) *Medicaid/SCHIP measures.* Each State must submit the data required to compete on the Medicaid/SCHIP measures by the dates and in a manner that we and CMS will specify.
( e ) *Child care subsidy measure.* Each State must submit the data required to compete on the child care measure by the date(s) we will specify.
#### § 2556.165 What Fair Labor Standards apply to VISTA sponsors and subrecipients?

All sponsors and subrecipients that employ laborers and mechanics for construction, alteration, or repair of facilities must pay wages at prevailing rates as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 276a.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6195

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

REGINALD DARWIN MORTON, a/k/a Jay, a/k/a Boogie, a/k/a Jason, a/k/a 

Novacaine,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00024-JPJ-14)

Submitted: May 25, 2021 Decided: May 28, 2021

Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Darwin Morton, Appellant Pro Se. Whitney Demain Pierce, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Reginald Darwin Morton appeals the district court’s order denying his motions for 

a sentence reduction pursuant to § 404 of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 

132 Stat. 5194, 5222 (2018), and for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act. On appeal, we confine our review to 

the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Morton’s informal 

brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited 

appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 

2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our 

review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s judgment. 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
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            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 Current Report of Mobile Reach International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 8-K/A as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alan Christopher Johnson, Chief
Executive Office 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) of
15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Action 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.

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                            /s/  Alan Christopher Johnson
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Alan Christopher Johnson
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
January 16, 2006
#### § 400.55 Availability of agency policies.

A State, or the agency(s) responsible for the provision of RCA, must make available to refugees the written policies of the RCA program, including agency policies regarding eligibility standards, the duration and amount of cash assistance payments, the requirements for participation in services, the penalties for non-cooperation, and client rights and responsibilities to ensure that refugees understand what they are eligible for, what is expected of them, and what protections are available to them. The State, or the agency(s) responsible for the provision of RCA, must ensure that agency policy materials and all notices required in §§ 400.54, 400.82, and 400.83, are made available in written form in English and in appropriate languages where a significant number or proportion of the recipient population needs information in a particular language. In regard to refugee language groups that constitute a small number or proportion of the recipient population, the State, or the agency(s) responsible for the provision of RCA, at a minimum, must use an alternative method, such as verbal translation in the refugee's native language, to ensure that the content of the agency's policies is effectively communicated to each refugee.

Public/Private RCA Program
§ 2508.17 When shall fees be charged and at what rate? ( a ) No fees shall be charged for search time or for any other time expended by the Corporation to review or produce a record except where an individual requests that a copy be made of the record to which he or she is granted access. Where a copy of the record must be made in order to provide access to the record (e.g., computer printout where no screen reading is available), the copy will be made available to the individual without cost.
( b ) The applicable fee schedule is as follows: ( 1 ) Each copy of each page, up to 81 ⁄ 2′′ × 14′′, made by photocopy or similar process is $0.10 per page.
( 2 ) Each copy of each microform frame printed on paper is $0.25.
( 3 ) Each aperture card is $0.25.
( 4 ) Each 105-mm fiche is $0.25.
( 5 ) Each 100′ foot role of 35-mm microfilm is $7.00.
( 6 ) Each 100′ foot role of 16-mm microfilm is $6.00.
( 7 ) Each page of computer printout without regard to the number of carbon copies concurrently printed is $0.20.
( 8 ) Copying records not susceptible to photocopying (e.g., punch cards or magnetic tapes), at actual cost to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
( 9 ) Other copying forms (e.g., typing or printing) will be charged at direct costs, including personnel and equipment costs.
( c ) All copying fees shall be paid by the individual before the copying will be undertaken. Payments shall be made by check or money order payable to the “Corporation for National and Community Service,” and provided to the Privacy Act Officer processing the request.
( d ) A copying fee shall not be charged or collected, or alternatively, it may be reduced, when it is determined by the Privacy Act Officer, based on a petition, that the petitioning individual is indigent and that the Corporation's resources permit a waiver of all or part of the fee. An individual is deemed to be indigent when he or she is without income or lacks the resources sufficient to pay the fees.
( e ) Special and additional services provided at the request of the individual, such as certification or authentication, postal insurance and special mailing arrangement costs, will be charged to the individual.
( f ) A copying fee totaling $5.00 or less shall be waived, but the copying fees for contemporaneous requests by the same individual shall be aggregated to determine the total fee.
§ 270.8 How will we allocate the bonus award funds? ( a ) In FY 2002 and beyond, we will allocate and award $140 million to the ten States with the highest scores for each work measure as follows, subject to reallocation as specified in § 270.9: ( 1 ) Job Entry Rate—$56 million
( 2 ) Success in the Work Force—$35 million
( 3 ) Increase in Job Entry Rate—$28 million
( 4 ) Increase in Success in the Work Force—$21 million;
( b ) In FY 2002 and beyond, we will allocate and award $20 million to the ten States with the highest scores on the Food Stamp measures and $20 million to the ten States with the highest scores on the Medicaid/SCHIP measures, subject to reallocation as specified in § 270.9. For these measures, we will: ( 1 ) Award $6 million to the three States with the highest scores on the Food Stamp absolute measure;
( 2 ) Award $6 million to the three States with the highest scores on the Medicaid/SCHIP absolute measure;
( 3 ) Award $14 million to the seven States with the highest scores on the Food Stamp improvement measure; and
( 4 ) Award $14 million to the seven States with the highest scores on the Medicaid/SCHIP improvement measure.
( c ) In FY 2002 and beyond, we will allocate and award $10 million to the ten States with the highest scores on the child care subsidy measure and $10 million to the ten States with the highest scores on the family formation and stability improvement measure.
( d ) We will distribute the bonus dollars for each measure based on each State's percentage of the total amount of the State family assistance grants of the States that will receive a bonus.
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of 

Request for Consideration of a Legal 

Question Submitted by Friends of Mike 

Lee 

) 

) LRA 1044 

) 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Laura E. Sinram, recording secretary for the Federal Election Commission executive 

session on July 11, 2017, do hereby certify that the Commission decided by a vote of 5-0 to 

conclude that the Committee can retain contributions that were designated for the primary 

election provided those contributions were received prior to the date of the nominating 

convention. 

Commissioners Goodman, Hunter, Petersen, Walther, and Weintraub voted affirmatively 

for the decision. 

Attest: 

Acting Deputy Secretary of the Commission
§ 402.50 Recordkeeping. A State must provide for the maintenance of such records as are necessary: ( a ) To meet the requirements of the Act and Department regulations relating to retention of and access to records.
( b ) To allow the State to provide to the Department ( 1 ) an accurate description of its activities undertaken with SLIAG funds, and
( 2 ) a complete record of the purposes for which SLIAG funds were spent, and of the recipients of such funds; and
( c ) To allow the Department and auditors of the State to determine the extent to which SLIAG funds were expended consistent with the Act and this regulation.
#### James A. Dustin, *Respondent, v.*John F. Wallace and Joseph O. Nay, *as Executor, etc., Appellants*.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Daniels, J.
#### § 287.20 May a Public Law 102-477 Tribe operate a NEW Program?

Yes, if the Tribe is an “eligible Indian tribe.”
#### Ludlow v. Dole, appellant.

*Evidence—immaterial testimony*— *Discretion of court as to repetition of testi*mony— *Variance—proof of specific agreement to establish quantum meruit.*

In an action for commissions for the sale of real estate, the defense was that the property had been sold through the instrumentality of one A, and not that of plaintiffs. A had testified that the property was purchased for Gh and a firm. *Held,*that evidence showing that the firm expended money upon the property after purchase was immaterial, as was also evidence of transactions subsequent to the purchase between GJ. and the firm in relation to the property.

A testified to a fact which Gh denied. *Held,*that the trial court had discretion to exclude the testimony of A, re-affirming the fact.

The complaint was upon a *quantum meruit,*the evidence showed a price agreed upon of the same amount. *Held,*that an instruction to the jury that they could not give a verdict for less than the amount claimed was correct. The specific contract fixing the price for the services became the *quantum meruit. King*v. *Brown,*3 Hill, 485; *Nones*v. *Homer,*3 Hilt. 116; *Nells*v. *Vestmli,*3 Keyes, 153.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs. The action was brought by Edward H. Ludlow and others against Nathaniel Dole to recover commissions for alleged services in the sale of defendant’s real estate.

*W. W. Mies,*for appellant.

*J. H. & B. F. Watson,*for respondents.

Brady, J.

The only material points passed upon in the opinion are fully noticed in the head-note, and a publication at length is not deemed necessary.

*Judgment affirmed.*
#### Tice v. Gallop.

*Agency—when agent to sell may warrant.*

B. was authorized by the owner oí a horse to sell the same for §60, without further restriction. *Held,*that a warranty by B. to the purchaser would bind the owner.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Niagara county court affirming a judgment réndered in a justice’s court in favor of plaintiff.

The action was brought by James A. Tice, Jr., against Ruel Gallop, to recover damages for a breach of warranty in the sale of a horse. The horse was .sold to plaintiff by one Anson Burgo, the agent of the defendant for that purpose. Burgo had authority to sell the horse, the only restriction being that he should not sell for less than $60. Burgo sold to plaintiff for $60, and made certain untrue representations amounting to a warranty, in relation to the age and condition of the horse.

At the trial before the justice this question was asked defendant, who was sworn as a witness on his own behalf:

*“*Did you instruct Burgo to state ■ to Tice that the horse was about eleven years old, had the heaves very slightly, and that the bone spavin had been killed, and did not hurt the horse ? ”

Upon plaintiff’s objection the evidence was excluded. The justice gave judgment in favor of plaintiff for $40 damages, besides costs.

*52
      *Ellsworth & Potter,*for appellant,

cited *Scott*v. McGrath, 7 Barb. 53; Mills v. *Lewis,*37 How. 425; *Jeffrey*v. *Bigelow,*13 Wend. 520.

*B. J. Hunting,*for respondent.

Gilbert, J.

The authority to Burgo was to sell the horse if he got $60. Burgo sold to the plaintiff for that price, and induced the plaintiff to purchase by representing among other things that the horse was only eleven years old, whereas he was fifteen; that a lameness which he had came from a kick, whereas it was caused by a bone spavin. No question is made that those representations amounted to a warranty, or that there was a breach. The plaintiff recovered judgment, which was affirmed by the county court.

The error complained of is that a question put to the defendant when testifying on his own behalf, viz., whether he instructed Burgo to make the representations which constitute the warranty, was excluded. We perceive no error. Whether Burgo was a general or special agent, he had authority to make the representations 'by virtue of his agency to sell, unless he was forbidden so to do by his principal. *Nelson*v. *Cowing,*6 Hill, 336; Story on Agency, § 137. The question was irrelevant. A specific authority to warrant is not necessary.

The judgment must be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
Exhibit 10.3(L)


                           CIT Business Credit                  T:  212-536-120
                           1211 Avenue of the Americas
                           New York, NY  10036


CIT
                                                           May 19, 2000

PHARMACEUTICAL FORMULATION, INC.
460 Plainfield Avenue
Edison, NJ  08817

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Reference is made to the (i) Loan and Security Agreement between you and us, as
successor by merger to The CIT Group/Credit Finance, Inc., dated August 4, 1989,
as supplemented and amended (the "Loan Agreement") and (ii) the letter agreement
between us dated April 26, 1999 with respect to a certain Overadvance (the
"Overadvance Letter"). Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein
shall have the same meanings given them in the Loan Agreement and/or the
Overadvance Letter.

Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in the Overadvance Letter it is
hereby mutually agreed that, the current outstanding balance of the Overadvance
which is $2,650,000.00 and is due and payable to us without offset, counterclaim
or deduction, shall be repaid in monthly installments of $100,000.00 on the
first business day of each month commencing on June 1, 2000.

The effectiveness of this agreement shall be subject to our receipt of an
amendment (in form and substance satisfactory to us) increasing the Guaranty
executed by ICC Industries, Inc. from $2,000,000.00 to $2,500,000.00.

Except as herein specifically provided, the Loan Agreement and/or the
Overadvance Letter shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with
their terms and no other changes in or waivers of the terms or provisions of the
Loan Agreement and/or the Overadvance Letter are intended or implied. Nothing
contained herein shall or shall be deemed to waive, release or modify any right
or remedy to either party under the Loan Agreement or applicable law. If you are
in agreement with the foregoing, please so indicate by signing and returning to
us the enclosed copy of this letter.

                                Very truly yours,

                                THE CIT GROUP/BUSINESS CREDIT, INC.
                                As successor by merger to
                                The CIT Group/Credit
                                Finance, Inc.



                                By:  /S/ _______________________________
                                Title:  Assistant Vice President

Read and Agreed to:

PHARMACEUTICAL FORMULATIONS, INC.



By:  /S/ JOHN L. ORAM
     __________________________________
Title:  Chairman