alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §745. Treatment of accounts

(a) Accounts held by the debtor for a particular customer in separate capacities shall be treated as accounts of separate customers.

(b) If a stockbroker or a bank holds a customer net equity claim against the debtor that arose out of a transaction for a customer of such stockbroker or bank, each such customer of such stockbroker or bank shall be treated as a separate customer of the debtor.

(c) Each trustee's account specified as such on the debtor's books, and supported by a trust deed filed with, and qualified as such by, the Internal Revenue Service, and under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, shall be treated as a separate customer account for each beneficiary under such trustee account.

(Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2613; Pub. L. 97–222, §11, July 27, 1982, 96 Stat. 238; Pub. L. 98–353, title III, §483, July 10, 1984, 98 Stat. 383; Pub. L. 103–394, title V, §501(d)(28), Oct. 22, 1994, 108 Stat. 4146.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

#### senate report no. 95–989

Section 745(a) indicates that each account held by a customer in a separate capacity is to be considered a separate account. This prevents the offset of accounts held in different capacities.

Subsection (b) indicates that a bank or another stockbroker that is a customer of a debtor is considered to hold its customers accounts in separate capacities. Thus a bank or other stockbroker is not treated as a mutual fund for purposes of bulk investment. This protects unrelated customers of a bank or other stockholder from having their accounts offset.

Subsection (c) effects the same result with respect to a trust so that each beneficiary is treated as the customer of the debtor rather than the trust itself. This eliminates any doubt whether a trustee holds a personal account in a separate capacity from his trustee's account.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Internal Revenue Code of 1986, referred to in subsec. (c), is classified generally to Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.

#### Amendments

1994—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 103–394 substituted "Internal Revenue Code of 1986" for "Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (26 U.S.C. 1 et seq.)".

1984—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 98–353 inserted "the debtor for" after "by".

1982—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 97–222 substituted "Each" for "A".

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

#### Effective Date of 1994 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 103–394 effective Oct. 22, 1994, and not applicable with respect to cases commenced under this title before Oct. 22, 1994, see section 702 of Pub. L. 103–394, 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.
#### § 40.5 Repayments.

Repayment schedules for educational loans may provide not to exceed two years for repayment for each year in school.
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350****MEMORY PHARMACEUTICALS CORP.****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     Each of the undersigned officers of Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp. (the “Company”) herebycertifies to his knowledge that the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period endedMarch 31, 2007 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.   /s/ James R. Sulat   JAMES R. SULAT  President and Chief Executive Officer  (Principal Executive Officer)  May 15, 2007     /s/ Joseph M. Donabauer   JOSEPH M. DONABAUER  Vice President & Controller  (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)  May 15, 2007  *A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 has been provided to Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp. and will be retained by MemoryPharmaceuticals Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest. This written statement accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission, and will not be incorporated by reference into anyfiling of Memory Pharmaceuticals Corp. under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
### Part B—Mergers, Transfers of Assets, and Powers of Associations Within a District
### [§2283. Renumbered §4901]
#### § 514.15 May tribes submit fingerprint cards to the Commission for processing?

Tribes may submit fingerprint cards to the Commission for processing by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Commission may charge a fee to process fingerprint cards on behalf of the tribes.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                      MIDLAND CAPITAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION

                                   EXHIBIT 11

              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


                                       Three Months Ended      Six Months Ended
                                           December 31,           December 31,
                                        2003        2002        2003       2002
                                      --------    --------    --------   --------
<S>                                   <C>         <C>         <C>        <C>
Net Income                            $117,721    $171,291    $664,598   $382,008
                                      ========    ========    ========   ========

Weighted average common shares
  outstanding for basic computation    372,600     363,975     372,600    363,975
                                      ========    ========    ========   ========

Basic earnings per share              $   0.32    $   0.47    $   1.78   $   1.05
                                      ========    ========    ========   ========

Weighted average common shares
  outstanding for basic computation    372,600     363,975     372,600    363,975

Common stock equivalents due to
  dilutive effect of stock options          --       4,936        --        4,734
                                      --------    --------    --------   --------
Weighted average common shares and
  equivalents outstanding for
  diluted computation                  372,600     368,911     372,600    368,709
                                      ========    ========    ========   ========
Diluted earnings per share            $   0.32    $   0.46    $   1.78   $   1.04
                                      ========    ========    ========   ========
</TABLE>

                                       20
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
I, Michael P. Huseby, 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/ Michael P. HusebyMichael P. HusebyChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 7388

JOHNATHON KELLY , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.
WARDEN J. C. STREEVAL , Respondent

- Appellee

.

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

. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. ( 7:21

- cv - 00382

- MFU

- JCH )

Submitted : January 20, 2022 Decided: January 25, 2022

Before WILKINSON , DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Johnathon Kelly , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Jo h nath o n Kelly seeks to appeal the district court’s o rder dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party in a c ivil case, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court entered its order of dismissal on July 8, 2021. Ke lly filed the notice of appeal on September 9. * Because Kelly failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten tions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

* For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date appearing on Kelly’s notice of appeal is the earliest date Kelly could have delivered the notice to prison officials for mailing to the court

. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).
### §949k. Defense of lack of mental responsibility

(a) Affirmative Defense.—It is an affirmative defense in a trial by military commission under this chapter that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the accused, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of the acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense.

(b) Burden of Proof.—The accused in a military commission under this chapter has the burden of proving the defense of lack of mental responsibility by clear and convincing evidence.

(c) Findings Following Assertion of Defense.—Whenever lack of mental responsibility of the accused with respect to an offense is properly at issue in a military commission under this chapter, the military judge shall instruct the members as to the defense of lack of mental responsibility under this section and shall charge the members to find the accused—

(1) guilty;

(2) not guilty; or

(3) subject to subsection (d), not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility.

(d) Majority Vote Required for Finding.—The accused shall be found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility under subsection (c)(3) only if a majority of the members present at the time the vote is taken determines that the defense of lack of mental responsibility has been established.

(Added Pub. L. 111–84, div. A, title XVIII, §1802, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2588.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 949k, added Pub. L. 109–366, §3(a)(1), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2615, related to the defense of lack of mental responsibility, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 111–84.
### §928. Post petition effect of security interest

(a) Notwithstanding section 552(a) of this title and subject to subsection (b) of this section, special revenues acquired by the debtor after the commencement of the case shall remain subject to any lien resulting from any security agreement entered into by the debtor before the commencement of the case.

(b) Any such lien on special revenues, other than municipal betterment assessments, derived from a project or system shall be subject to the necessary operating expenses of such project or system, as the case may be.

(Added Pub. L. 100–597, §8, Nov. 3, 1988, 102 Stat. 3029.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section 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 an Effective Date of 1988 Amendment note under section 101 of this title.
212 Airport Drive www.bradfordairport.net 

## B RRDFORD 

## R EGIOnaL**HIRPOR r** 

Mr. Dennis J. DeVany**Chiet~** Essential Air Service Division Office ofAviation Analysis US Department ofTransportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Room 6401 Washington, D.C. 20590
DearMr. DeVany: Lewis Run, PA 16738 814-368-5928 EX 10
July 30,20I0

Thank you for the opportunityto review and comment on the proposal for Essential Air Service for Bradford Regional Airport. As stated in previous letters, we believe that passenger growth for Bradford requires a hub airport that provides both domestic and international connections is essential. We hope there is a possibility ofworking with Gulfstream to again provide a link to the Washington-Dulles airport
. Bradford Regional AirportAuthority supports Gulfstream's proposal for Option One to provide scheduled air service to Franklin/Oil City (FKL) under the Essential Air Service program. We believe communities currently under the EAS program should not be dropped from the program when the subsidy limit perpassengerhas not been indexed for inflation and has remained unchanged since its inception in 1978. We appreciate the opportunity to provide the community perspective. Ifyou haye questions regarding our recommendations please do not hesitate to contactus. Sincerely,

Thomas C. Frungillo, C.M. Airport Director

cc: Congressman Glenn Thompson
### §1034. Repealed. June 3, 1935, ch. 164, §5(c), 49 Stat. 315

Section, act July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title II, §202(d), as added act Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 252, title I, §2, 42 Stat. 1456, related to interest and discount charges and rediscount of paper of other intermediate credit banks.
```

[109th Congress Public Law 423]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ423.109]

[[Page 120 STAT. 2900]]

Public Law 109-423
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
     To extend for 3 years changes to requirements for admission of 
 nonimmigrant nurses in health professional shortage areas made by the 
  Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Act of 1999. <<NOTE: Dec. 20, 
                         2006 -  [H.R. 1285]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: Nursing Relief 
for Disadvantaged Areas Reauthorization Act of 2005.>> 
SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 8 USC 1101 note.>> SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged 
Areas Reauthorization Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. 3-YEAR EXTENSION FOR CHANGES TO REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION 
                    OF NONIMMIGRANT NURSES IN HEALTH PROFESSIONAL 
                    SHORTAGE AREAS.

    Section 2 of the Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Act of 1999 
(8 U.S.C. 1182 note) is amended--
            (1) in the section heading, by striking ``4-year'' and 
        inserting ``specified''; and
            (2) <<NOTE: 8 USC 1182 note.>> by amending subsection (e) to 
        read as follows:

    ``(e) Limiting Application of Nonimmigrant Changes to Specified 
Period.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to 
classification petitions filed for nonimmigrant status only during the 
period--
            ``(1) <<NOTE: Effective date.>> beginning on the date that 
        interim or final regulations are first promulgated under 
        subsection (d); and
            ``(2) <<NOTE: Termination date.>> ending on the date that is 
        3 years after the date of the enactment of the Nursing Relief 
        for Disadvantaged Areas Reauthorization Act of 2005.''.
SEC. 3. <<NOTE: 8 USC 1182 note.>> EXEMPTION FROM ADMINISTRATIVE 
                    PROCEDURE ACT.

    The requirements of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code 
(commonly referred to as the ``Administrative Procedure Act'') or any 
other law relating to rulemaking, information collection or publication 
in the Federal Register, shall not apply to any action to implement the 
amendments made by section 2 to the extent the Secretary Homeland of 
Security, the Secretary of Labor, or the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services determines that

[[Page 120 STAT. 2901]]

compliance with any such requirement would impede the expeditious 
implementation of such amendments.

    Approved December 20, 2006.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1285:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):
            June 20, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 6, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1019

AN ACT

For the relief of Regine Beatie Edwards.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

S 1019 ES

1 SECTION 1. CLASSIFICATION AS A CHILD UNDER THE IMMI2 GRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—In the administration of the Im4 migration and Nationality Act, Regine Beatie Edwards

5 shall be classified as a child within the meaning of section

6 101(b)(1)(E) of such Act, upon approval of a petition filed

7 on her behalf by Stan Edwards, a citizen of the United

8 States, pursuant to section 204 of such Act.

9 (b) LIMITATION.—No natural parent, brother, or sis10 ter, if any, of Regine Beatie Edwards shall, by virtue of

11 such relationship, be accorded any right, privilege, or sta12 tus under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Passed the Senate November 19, 1999.

Attest:

Secretary.
106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1019

AN ACT

For the relief of Regine Beatie Edwards.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

76-66 

May 14, 1976 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4041(a) Termination by Plan Administrator. Filing of Notice of Intent to Terminate

4082(c). Effective Date; Special Rules. Applicability of Title IV to Multiemployer Plan Terminations 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your letter of May 3, 1976. You asked, on behalf of the trustees of * * * (the "Fund") whether

the trustees of the Fund may continue to pay installments of the termination benefit provided by the Fund to those

participants who terminated employment before November 30, 1975, the proposed date of termination, and whose

applications had been approved prior to that date. You also asked whether the trustees could process the applications

of participants who were eligible for the termination benefit as of November 30, 1975, but did not make an application

for such benefit until after that date. 

Of course, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the "PBGC") cannot advise the trustees whether to pay the

termination benefit. However, no provision in Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974

("ERISA") would prevent payment of benefits to which participants became entitled before a proposed date of

termination, while an application for the discretionary guaranty [*2] of benefits under § 4082(c) of ERISA is pending

before the PBGC. Assuming, as we do, that the payments you have asked about are not substantial, your pending

application will not be prejudiced by your decision to pay such benefits. 

I hope this is of assistance. 

Barry S. Slevin 

Attorney
#### § 212.50 [Reserved]
#### § 62.3 Information collection.

In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget regulations contained in 5 CFR 1320.3, approval of the information collection requirements contained in this part is not required.
Docket No.: FAA - 2012 - 0141
#### § 36.101 How often must students who have been separated for emergency health or behavioral reasons be supervised?

Students who have been separated for emergency behavioral or health reasons must be supervised as frequently and as closely as the circumstances and protocols require. No student will be left unsupervised for any period until such factors as the student's health based on a medical assessment, the safety of the student, and any other applicable guidance for dealing with behavior or health emergencies are considered.
### [§2446a. Renumbered §4401]
#### § 152.9 Certificates of competency to certain Osage adults.

Applications for certificates of competency by adult members of the Osage Tribe of one-half or more Indian blood shall be in the form approved by the Secretary. Upon the finding by the Secretary that an applicant is competent, a certificate of competency may be issued removing restrictions against alienation of all restricted property and terminating the trust on all restricted property, except Osage headright interests, of the applicant.

Cross References:

For regulations pertaining to the issuance of certificates of competency to adult Osage Indians of less than one-half Indian blood, see [part 154 of this chapter](/on/2024-03-22/title-25/part-154).