alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §948l. Detail or employment of reporters and interpreters

(a) Court Reporters.—Under such regulations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, the convening authority of a military commission under this chapter shall detail to or employ for the military commission qualified court reporters, who shall prepare a verbatim record of the proceedings of and testimony taken before the military commission.

(b) Interpreters.—Under such regulations as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe, the convening authority of a military commission under this chapter may detail to or employ for the military commission interpreters who shall interpret for the military commission, and, as necessary, for trial counsel and defense counsel for the military commission, and for the accused.

(c) Transcript; Record.—The transcript of a military commission under this chapter shall be under the control of the convening authority of the military commission, who shall also be responsible for preparing the record of the proceedings of the military commission.

(Added Pub. L. 111–84, div. A, title XVIII, §1802, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2578.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 948l, added Pub. L. 109–366, §3(a)(1), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2605, related to detail or employment of reporters and interpreters, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 111–84.
Exhibit 32

Section 906 Certification

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, updated pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc., the sole general partner of Host Hotels & Resorts, L.P., (the Company) hereby certify, to such officers
knowledge, that:

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 27, 2009 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended: and

(ii)
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: April 30, 2009



/s/ W. Edward WalterW. Edward WalterChief Executive Officerof Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc./s/ Larry K. HarveyLarry K. HarveyChief Financial Officerof Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc.
#### Gottfried Schneider, Appellant, v. Anna M. Schneider, Respondent.

(No. 2.)

— Judgment reversed,' new trial ordered, costs to appellant to • abide event on *Schneider*v. Schneider, *No. 1*(122 App. Div. 774).
----

|                          |
|--------------------------|
|                          |  |
| 001-10315                | 63-0860407 |
| (Commission File Number) | (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |
|                     |   |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |
| ¨ | Written communication pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) |
| ¨ | Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) |
| ¨ | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) |
| ¨ | Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) |

----

----

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |
| (d)    |  |   | Exhibits. |
|   |   |
| 99.1   |  |   | Press Release of HealthSouth Corporation, dated July 20, 2015. |

----

|                         |
|-------------------------|
|                         |  |  |
| HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION |
| By:                     | /S/   JOHN P. WHITTINGTON |
|                    | Name: | John P. Whittington |
|                    | Title: | Executive Vice President, General Counseland Corporate Secretary |
### §922. Automatic stay of enforcement of claims against the debtor

(a) A petition filed under this chapter operates as a stay, in addition to the stay provided by section 362 of this title, applicable to all entities, of—

(1) the commencement or continuation, including the issuance or employment of process, of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against an officer or inhabitant of the debtor that seeks to enforce a claim against the debtor; and

(2) the enforcement of a lien on or arising out of taxes or assessments owed to the debtor.

(b) Subsections (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) of section 362 of this title apply to a stay under subsection (a) of this section the same as such subsections apply to a stay under section 362(a) of this title.

(c) If the debtor provides, under section 362, 364, or 922 of this title, adequate protection of the interest of the holder of a claim secured by a lien on property of the debtor and if, notwithstanding such protection such creditor has a claim arising from the stay of action against such property under section 362 or 922 of this title or from the granting of a lien under section 364(d) of this title, then such claim shall be allowable as an administrative expense under section 503(b) of this title.

(d) Notwithstanding section 362 of this title and subsection (a) of this section, a petition filed under this chapter does not operate as a stay of application of pledged special revenues in a manner consistent with section 927 of this title to payment of indebtedness secured by such revenues.

(Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2623; Pub. L. 98–353, title III, §495, July 10, 1984, 98 Stat. 384; Pub. L. 100–597, §5, Nov. 3, 1988, 102 Stat. 3029.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

#### house report no. 95–595

The automatic stay provided under section 362 of title 11 is incomplete for a municipality, because there is the possibility of action by a creditor against an officer or inhabitant of the municipality to collect taxes due the municipality. Section 85(e)(1) of current chapter IX [section 405(e)(1) of former title 11] stays such actions. Section 922 carries over that protection into the proposed chapter 9. Subsection (b) applies the provisions for relief from the stay that apply generally in section 362 to the stay under section 922.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1988—Subsecs. (c), (d). Pub. L. 100–597 added subsecs. (c) and (d).

1984—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 98–353 substituted "a judicial" for "judicial", and "action or proceeding" for "proceeding".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–597 effective Nov. 3, 1988, but not applicable to any case commenced under this title before that date, see section 12 of Pub. L. 100–597, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–353 effective with respect to cases filed 90 days after July 10, 1984, see section 552(a) of Pub. L. 98–353, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.
### §9532. Factories, arsenals, and depots: manufacture at

The Secretary of the Air Force may have supplies needed for the Department of the Air Force made in factories, arsenals, or depots owned by the United States, so far as those factories, arsenals, or depots can make those supplies on an economical basis.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 576.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 9532 | 5:626–2(e). | Sept. 19, 1951, ch. 407, §101(e), 65 Stat. 327. |

The word "made" is substituted for the words "manufactured or produced". The words "United States" are substituted for the word "Government".
Editorial Note on Part 23
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 23 appear at 79 FR 27190, May 13, 2014.

§ 23.107 How should a State court determine if there is reason to know the child is an Indian child? ( a ) State courts must ask each participant in an emergency or voluntary or involuntary child-custody proceeding whether the participant knows or has reason to know that the child is an Indian child. The inquiry is made at the commencement of the proceeding and all responses should be on the record. State courts must instruct the parties to inform the court if they subsequently receive information that provides reason to know the child is an Indian child.
( b ) If there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, but the court does not have sufficient evidence to determine that the child is or is not an “Indian child,” the court must: ( 1 ) Confirm, by way of a report, declaration, or testimony included in the record that the agency or other party used due diligence to identify and work with all of the Tribes of which there is reason to know the child may be a member (or eligible for membership), to verify whether the child is in fact a member (or a biological parent is a member and the child is eligible for membership); and
( 2 ) Treat the child as an Indian child, unless and until it is determined on the record that the child does not meet the definition of an “Indian child” in this part.
( c ) A court, upon conducting the inquiry required in paragraph (a) of this section, has reason to know that a child involved in an emergency or child-custody proceeding is an Indian child if: ( 1 ) Any participant in the proceeding, officer of the court involved in the proceeding, Indian Tribe, Indian organization, or agency informs the court that the child is an Indian child;
( 2 ) Any participant in the proceeding, officer of the court involved in the proceeding, Indian Tribe, Indian organization, or agency informs the court that it has discovered information indicating that the child is an Indian child;
( 3 ) The child who is the subject of the proceeding gives the court reason to know he or she is an Indian child;
( 4 ) The court is informed that the domicile or residence of the child, the child's parent, or the child's Indian custodian is on a reservation or in an Alaska Native village;
( 5 ) The court is informed that the child is or has been a ward of a Tribal court; or
( 6 ) The court is informed that either parent or the child possesses an identification card indicating membership in an Indian Tribe.
( d ) In seeking verification of the child's status in a voluntary proceeding where a consenting parent evidences, by written request or statement in the record, a desire for anonymity, the court must keep relevant documents pertaining to the inquiry required under this section confidential and under seal. A request for anonymity does not relieve the court, agency, or other party from any duty of compliance with ICWA, including the obligation to verify whether the child is an “Indian child.” A Tribe receiving information related to this inquiry must keep documents and information confidential.
# C_2006281EN.01001702.xml

| 18.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/17

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 31 July 2006 — K.D. Chuck v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank

(Case C-331/06)

(2006/C 281/27)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: K.D. Chuck

Applicant:

Defendant: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank

Defendant:

Question referred

Where a worker is resident outside the Community on the date on which he reaches pensionable age, should Article 48 of the Regulation (1) be applied in the same way as in a case where the worker concerned is resident in the territory of the Community?

1

---

(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (English special edition: Series I Chapter 1971(II) p. 416).

1

---
### §949l. Voting and rulings

(a) Vote by Secret Written Ballot.—Voting by members of a military commission under this chapter on the findings and on the sentence shall be by secret written ballot.

(b) Rulings.—(1) The military judge in a military commission under this chapter shall rule upon all questions of law, including the admissibility of evidence and all interlocutory questions arising during the proceedings.

(2) Any ruling made by the military judge upon a question of law or an interlocutory question (other than the factual issue of mental responsibility of the accused) is conclusive and constitutes the ruling of the military commission. However, a military judge may change such a ruling at any time during the trial.

(c) Instructions Prior to Vote.—Before a vote is taken of the findings of a military commission under this chapter, the military judge shall, in the presence of the accused and counsel, instruct the members as to the elements of the offense and charge the members—

(1) that the accused must be presumed to be innocent until the accused's guilt is established by legal and competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt;

(2) that in the case being considered, if there is a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused and the accused must be acquitted;

(3) that, if there is reasonable doubt as to the degree of guilt, the finding must be in a lower degree as to which there is no reasonable doubt; and

(4) that the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt is upon the United States.

(Added Pub. L. 111–84, div. A, title XVIII, §1802, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2589.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 949l, added Pub. L. 109–366, §3(a)(1), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2615, related to voting and rulings, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 111–84.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

77-139 

April 13, 1977 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4021(b)(9) Plans Covered. Substantial Owner Plans 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your letter setting forth the facts needed for the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

("PBGC") to determine whether the * * * is excluded from coverage of Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income

Security Act of 1974 ("Act") by virtue of § 4021(b)(9) of the Act. 

According to your letter, you are the sole stockholder of * * * and currently the sole participant in that company's

pension plan. However, there was another non-stockholder participant during 1975 who terminated employment with

no vested benefits in the plan. 

Based on this information, it appears that the * * * is exempt from Title IV coverage by virtue of § 4021(b)(9) of

the Act. However, if at any time in the future, a non-substantial owner should become a plan participant, the * * * would

no longer be exempt from Title IV coverage. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
# C_2006188EN.01000401.xml

| 11.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 188/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 188/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4313 — Goldman Sachs/Borealis/GICSI/Associated British Ports (II))

(2006/C 188/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 4 August 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4313. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4313. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6983

PERCELL FEDWOOD WARREN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID A. GARRAGHTY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-99-782) Submitted: November 9, 2000 Decided: November 15, 2000 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Percell Fedwood Warren, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey,III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Percell Fedwood Warren seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s memorandum opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Warren v. Garraghty , NO. CA-99-782 (E.D. Va. June 21, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### [§371. Renumbered §271]
#### Goar *v.*Wilcox.

[No. 11,895.

Filed November 13, 1924.]

From Henry Circuit Court; *Fred C. Cause,*Judge.

Action between 01 Goar and Uz Wilcox. From the judgment rendered, the former appeals.

*Affirmed.*

*George D. Forlcner,*for appellant.

*Evans & Dewitt,*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Judgment affirmed.
### [§377. Renumbered §277]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Yardley Rogers, Appellant.

[824 NYS2d 121]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered March 26, 2004, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made to law enforcement officials.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that statements he made to a police detective after the administration of *Miranda*warnings *(see Miranda v Arizona,*384 US 436 [1966]) should have been suppressed because they were the product of a continuous custodial interrogation which began before he was advised of his *505constitutional rights. However, since the defendant failed to raise this specific argument in support of suppression at the *Huntley*hearing *(see People v Huntley,*15 NY2d 72 [1965]), it is unpreserved for appellate review *(see People v Vasquez,*66 NY2d 968 [1985]; *People v Thompson,*27 AD3d 495 [2006]; *People v Caballero,*23 AD3d 1031 [2005]; *People v Santana,*235 AD2d 220 [1997]; *People v Brown,*195 AD2d 1055 [1993]), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Krausman and Lifson, JJ., concur.
# C_2006261EN.01000703.xml

| 28.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 3 July 2006 — Magdeburger Dienstleistungs- und Verwaltungs GmbH (MDG) v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Third party: Deutsche Post AG

(Case C-289/06)

(2006/C 261/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Magdeburger Dienstleistungs- und Verwaltungs GmbH (MDG)

Applicant:

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Defendant:

Third party: Deutsche Post AG

Third party

Question referred

Is Article 47(2), in conjunction with Article 95 EC, the fifth indent of Article 12, and Article 7(1) of Directive 97/67/EC, in the version as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), to be interpreted as meaning that, where a universal service provider applies special tariffs for business customers who give postal items to the sorting office pre-sorted for the postal network, that universal service provider is obliged to apply those special tariffs also to undertakings which collect postal items from the sender and give them pre-sorted for the postal network at the same access point and on the same terms and conditions as business customers, without the universal service provider being permitted to refuse to do so, having regard to its obligation to provide a universal service?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 176, p. 21.

1

---
Editorial Note on Part 224
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 224 appear at 84 FR 69611, Dec. 18, 2019.

§ 224.78 How long will a TERA remain in effect? A TERA that takes effect under this part remains in effect to the extent any provision of the TERA is consistent with applicable Federal law (including regulations), unless and until either: ( a ) The Secretary reassumes all activities included within a TERA without the consent of the Tribe under Subpart G; or
( b ) The Tribe rescinds a TERA under Subpart H.
[84 FR 69613, Dec. 18, 2019]
### §900. Art. 100. Subordinate compelling surrender

Any person subject to this chapter who compels or attempts to compel the commander of any place, vessel, aircraft, or other military property, or of any body of members of the armed forces, to give it up to an enemy or to abandon it, or who strikes the colors or flag to an enemy without proper authority, shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 70.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 900 | 50:694. | May 5, 1950, ch. 169, §1 (Art. 100), 64 Stat. 137. |
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:**Indiana�sforests
 
1998 | 1999-2003a | 1999-2003b | 2008| 2013|
 
SuDoc Number:A 13.80:F 76/IN 2/

Item Number:[if !vml]>[endif]>0083-B-05(online)

CGP systemNumber: 000869450