alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §8165. Staff corps officers: limitation on power to command

An officer in a staff corps may command only such activities as are appropriate to his corps.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 371, §5945; Pub. L. 90–130, §1(21), Nov. 8, 1967, 81 Stat. 380; renumbered §8165, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(b)(5), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1834.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 5945 | 34 U.S.C. 253. | R.S. 1488; Mar. 3, 1899, ch. 413, §7 (3d proviso of 2d sentence, and 3d sentence), 30 Stat. 1006; June 24, 1910, ch. 378, 36 Stat. 614 (3d proviso). |
| | 34 U.S.C. 30h (1st 23 words). | Aug. 4, 1947, ch. 459, §207 (1st 23 words), 61 Stat. 738; renumbered §206, Aug. 7, 1947, ch. 512, §433(b), 61 Stat. 881. |
| | 34 U.S.C. 43d (proviso). | Apr. 16, 1947, ch. 38, §205 (proviso), 61 Stat. 48. |

The provision of §7 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (supra), relating to relative rank is omitted as executed. The provision that the rank conferred upon staff corps officers shall not change their titles is omitted because these titles were abolished by §405 of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947 (34 U.S.C. 10a) and the corresponding line grades substituted. The cited proviso in the Act of June 24, 1910 (34 U.S.C. 253 (proviso)) is omitted as obsolete because the officers referred to were officers of the Construction Corps which has been abolished.

The first sentence of this section is phrased so as to reflect the accepted meaning of the cited provision. 34 U.S.C. 253, as worded, if interpreted literally, could be held to prohibit, for example, the assignment of members of the Medical Service Corps, Nurse Corps, and Hospital Corps to duty under officers of the Medical Corps, despite the fact that all of these corps were established by law within the Medical Department of the Navy. The provision is not so interpreted. It is understood to restrict only the types of activities that staff corps officers may command, and not to restrict to a single corps the personnel who may be assigned to an activity commanded by a staff corps officer.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 5945 of this title as this section.

1967—Pub. L. 90–130 struck out provision that an officer in the Nurse Corps may not exercise command.

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

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

                 Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of ITXC Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2002, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission  (the “Report”), I, Tom Evslin, Chief ExecutiveOfficer 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 the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 
 
 
 
(2)

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and theconsolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented.

Dated: November 14, 2002

 /S/ TOM EVSLIN
 
**Tom Evslin Chief Executive Officer of ITXC Corp.**

This certification has beenfurnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### § 273.158 When should the existing contracting party request technical assistance and/or training?

The existing contracting party is encouraged to request technical assistance and/or training before annual reporting requirements are due in order to avoid the consequences for failure to comply.
H. Res. 579

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

September 18, 2000.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution the

House shall be considered to have taken from the Speaker’s

table the bill H.R. 1651, with the Senate amendment thereto,

and to have concurred in the Senate amendment with the following amendment:

1 Page 1, line 4, strike ‘‘SEC. 401. USE OF AIRCRAFT

2 PROHIBITED.’’ and all that follows through ‘‘SEC. 402.’’,

3 and insert ‘‘SEC. 401.’’.

Attest:

Clerk.
1

The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1389

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

$20,000.00 in U.S. Currency, *

*

Defendant, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Hyon Ok Stallings, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 21, 2005

 Filed: September 27, 2005

___________

Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Claimant Hyon Ok Stallings appeals from the district court’s1

 adverse grant of

summary judgment in this civil forfeiture action.
-2-

We conclude summary judgment was proper because the government met its

burden of proving probable cause to forfeit the $20,000 at issue, and Stallings failed

to meet her burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the $20,000

was not connected to drug-trafficking activities. See United States v. Premises

Known as 7725 Unity Ave. N., Brooklyn Park, Minn., 294 F.3d 954, 958 (8th Cir.

2002) (burden shifting); United States v. $141,770 in U.S. Currency, 157 F.3d 600,

604 (8th Cir. 1998) (where large sums of money are not only stowed in an unusual

location, but are also wrapped in scented fabric softener sheets and sealed in zip-lock

bags, connection to drug trafficking cannot reasonably be disputed); United States v.

$41,305 in Currency and Travelers Checks, 802 F.2d 1339, 1344-45 (11th Cir. 1986)

(claimant must do more than show existence of possible legitimate sources for cash,

because possibility alone does not constitute preponderance of evidence defeating

forfeiture). We find no compelling reason to consider evidence Stallings attempts to

submit for the first time on appeal. See Rivers-Frison v. Se. Mo. Cmty. Treatment

Ctr., 133 F.3d 616, 619 n.2 (8th Cir. 1998).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          12,749     
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,407
<ALLOWANCES>                                       195
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,455
<PP&E>                                           3,915
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,924
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,505
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,869  
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         25
<COMMON>                                             1 
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,610
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,505
<SALES>                                         13,833
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,833
<CGS>                                              903
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,545
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,656
<INCOME-TAX>                                       454
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,656
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,202
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE v. THOMAS

No. 3P90

Case below: 96 N.C.App. 515

Motion by the Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of significant public interest allowed 7 February 1990. Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 7 February 1990. Petition by defendant for writ of supersedeas denied and temporary stay dissolved 7 February 1990.
### §988. Prohibition on ownership or trading of stocks in certain companies by certain officials of the Department of Defense

(a) Prohibition.—Except as provided in subsection (b), a covered official of the Department of Defense may not own or purchase publicly traded stock of a company if that company is one of the 10 entities awarded the most amount of contract funds by the Department of Defense in a fiscal year during the five preceding fiscal years.

(b) Exceptions.—This section shall not apply to the purchase or ownership of a publicly traded stock of a company otherwise described in subsection (a) as follows:

(1) If the aggregate market value of the holdings of the covered official, and the spouse and minor children of the covered official, in the stock of that company, both before and after purchase (in the case of a purchase), does not exceed the de minimis threshold established in section 2640.202(a)(2) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations.

(2) If the stock is purchased and owned as part of an Excepted Investment Fund or mutual fund.

(c) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) The term "covered official of the Department of Defense" means any of the following:

(A) A civilian appointed to a position in the Department of Defense by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

(B) If serving in a key acquisition position (as designated by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary concerned for purposes of this section), the following:

(i) A member of the armed forces in a grade above O–6.

(ii) A civilian officer or employee in a Senior Executive Service, Senior-Level, or Scientific or Professional position.

(2) The term "Excepted Investment Fund" means a widely-held investment fund described in section 102(f)(8) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.).1

(Added Pub. L. 116–92, div. A, title IX, §921(a), Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 1560.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 102(f)(8) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, referred to in subsec. (c)(2), is section 102(f)(8) of Pub. L. 95–521, which was set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, and was repealed and restated as section 13104(f)(8) of Title 5 by Pub. L. 117–286, §§3(c), (7), Dec. 27, 2022, 136 Stat. 4284, 4361.

1 See References in Text note below.
H. Res. 525

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

June 15, 2000.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 4635) making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes. The first reading

of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against

consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be

confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority

member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general

debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the

five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the bill

for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived

except as follows: beginning with ‘‘except that’’ on page 63,
2

•HRES 525 EH

line 4, through ‘‘drinking water contaminants’’ on line 8;

page 67, lines 4 through 14. Where points of order are

waived against part of a paragraph, points of order against

a provision in another part of such paragraph may be made

only against such provision and not against the entire paragraph. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the

Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority

in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering

an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of

the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in

clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the Committee of the

Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without

intervening business, provided that the minimum time for

electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall

be 15 minutes. During consideration of the bill, points of

order against amendments for failure to comply with clause

2(e) of rule XXI are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and

report the bill to the House with such amendments as may

have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered
3

•HRES 525 EH

as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
### [§2356. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–106, div. A, title VIII, §802(a), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 390]

Section, acts Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 135; Sept. 2, 1958, Pub. L. 85–861, §1(43A), 72 Stat. 1457; July 18, 1984, Pub. L. 98–369, div. B, title VII, §2727(d), 98 Stat. 1195; Dec. 4, 1987, Pub. L. 100–180, div. A, title XII, §1231(18)(B), 101 Stat. 1161, related to delegations of authority under sections 1584, 2353, 2354, and 2355 of this title.
§ 39.113 What are the special accountability requirements for the gifted and talented program? If a school identifies more than 13 percent of its student population as gifted and talented the Bureau will immediately audit the school's gifted and talented program to ensure that all identified students: ( a ) Meet the gifted and talented requirement in the regulations; and
( b ) Are receiving gifted and talented services.
#### § 48.110 For what purposes may a Bureau-operated school use the funds?

The Bureau-operated school must use the funds for school purposes.
# C_2006239EN.01001901.xml

| 4.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/19

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4284 — AXA/Winterthur)

(2006/C 239/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 28 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 32006M4284. 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 32006M4284. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
|                                |
|--------------------------------|
|                                |  |
| Media Contact                  | June 11, 2015 |
| Casey Lassiter, 205-410-2777   | For Immediate Release |
| casey.lassiter@healthsouth.com |   |
|                           |   |
| Investor Relations Contact     |   |
| Mary Ann Arico, 205-969-6175   |   |
| maryann.arico@healthsouth.com  |   |

----

----
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
RULE 13A-14(A) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 I, Dennis M. Keane, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp.;  2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;  3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and have:  a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report
our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants
board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting. Date: August 16, 2004 /s/ Dennis M. KeaneDennis M. KeaneChief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
I, Carl E. Vogel, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofRenaissance Media Group LLC, Renaissance Media (Louisiana)LLC, Renaissance Media (Tennessee) LLC and Renaissance MediaCapital Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made,not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrants as of, and for,the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrants’ other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrants and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrants,including their consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) [Reserved];  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrants’ disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrants’ internal control over financialreporting that occurred during theregistrants’ most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrants’ fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrants’ internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrants’ other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrants’auditors and the audit committee of the registrants’ board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrants’ ability to record,process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrants’internal control over financial reporting.
Date: August 13, 2004 /s/ Carl E. VogelCarl E. VogelChief Executive Officer