alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §8866. Mode of making sale

(a) If a sale of prize property is ordered by the court, the marshal shall—

(1) prepare and circulate full catalogues and schedules of the property to be sold and return a copy of each to the court;

(2) advertise the sale fully and conspicuously by posters and in newspapers ordered by the court;

(3) give notice to the naval prize commissioner at least five days before the sale; and

(4) keep the goods open for inspection for at least three days before the sale.

(b) An auctioneer of known skill in the business to which the sale pertains shall be employed by the Secretary of the Navy to make the sale. The auctioneer, or his agent, shall collect and deposit the gross proceeds of the sale. The auctioneer and his agent are responsible to the marshal for the conduct of the sale and the collection and deposit of the gross proceeds.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 479, §7666; renumbered §8866, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(d)(9), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1837.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 7666 | 34 U.S.C. 1144. | R.S. 4628. |

The statement in subsection (b) of the responsibility of the auctioneer and agent to the marshal in the collection and deposit of proceeds is inserted to clarify the marshal's functions. It is derived from 34 U.S.C. 1139, and appears in §7662 of this title.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 7666 of this title as this section.

#### **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 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, David J. Deno, certify
that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Bloomin Brands, Inc.;

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.



|                        |  |  |  |  |  |                                           
|----------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------
|Date: February 26, 2015 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ David J. Deno                         
|                        |  |  |  |  |  | David J. Deno                             
|                        |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Financial and Administrative Officer
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

77-136 

March 29, 1977 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4022(a) Benefits Guaranteed. Type of Benefits Guaranteed

29 CFR 2605. Guaranteed Benefits 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your request for advice on the eligibility of two disabled participants for guaranteed benefits

under the terminated * * * (the "Plan"). You indicate that both of the participants were disabled well before the Plan

terminated on * * * but that they did not apply for benefits until after that date. 

As you know, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the "PBGC") has published at 20 CFR Part 2605, a

regulation (the "Regulation") describing the benefits that are guaranteed under § 4022 of the Employee Retirement

Income Security Act of 1974 (the "Act"). Section 2605.3 of the Regulation states that a benefit is guaranteed, to the

extent it does not exceed specified limitations, if: 

(a) The benefit is nonforfeitable under § 2605.6; 

(b) The benefit qualifies as a pension benefit ad defined in § 2605.2; and * * * 

(c) The participant is entitled to the benefit under § 2605.5. 

Article VII of the Plan provides a disability annuity to participants who have ten or more years of credited service

and who become permanently and totally disabled. 

It appears that before the date [*2] of Plan termination both of the participants had satisfied the conditions of the

Plan necessary to establish the right to receive the benefit before that date, other than applying for the benefit and

obtaining approval from * * * ("Joint Board"). Provided each participant met the Plan's standards for disability, the Plan

gives the Joint Board no discretion to deny the applications. Accordingly, under § § 2605.5 and 2605.6 of the

Regulation, each of the participants has a nonforfeitable benefit to which he is entitled within the meaning of § 2605.3(a)

and (c). Therefore, the disability benefits would be guaranteed. 

I hope this is of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call * * * 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
#### § 40.2 Working scholarships.

Working scholarships may be granted to Indians who wish to earn their board and room by part-time work at Federal boarding schools that are located near a college, trade, or vocational school.
#### § 162.439 Will BIA review a proposed business lease before or during preparation of the NEPA review documentation?

Upon request of the Indian landowners, we will review the proposed business lease after negotiation by the parties, before or during preparation of the NEPA review documentation and any valuation. Within 60 days of receiving the proposed lease, we will provide an acknowledgement of the terms of the lease and identify any provisions that, based on this acknowledgment review, would justify disapproval of the lease, pending results of the NEPA review and any valuation.
### §1131a. Repealed. Pub. L. 92–181, title V, §5.26(a), Dec. 10, 1971, 85 Stat. 624

Section, act June 16, 1933, ch. 98, title I, §3, 48 Stat. 257, provided for the granting of a charter to the Production Credit Corporation, and authorized the directors to adopt by-laws. Section 3 of act June 16, 1933, was amended by act July 26, 1956, ch. 741, title I, §105(b), 70 Stat. 665, to eliminate provisions relating to the Production Credit Corporation. Section 3 of act June 16, 1933, was classified in its entirety to section 1134a of this title.
Feb. 8,2012 /ARTMErJTOF 

• '-SPORWION 

Dear DOT: --r.l .^.^kv 

I am writing to support the Sun Country slot exemption Docket No. FAAJ1012^0089 ' -• 

from Lansing, Michigan to Reagan National airport. These flights are very important to 

the economic development of the Lansing area for local business people. State Govt, 

officials and Michigan State University in their dealings with the Federal Govt. Lansing 

was originally awarded the slot because it was an underserved community in regards to 

their airline service, it would be a shame to end that now. An additional flight exemption 

should not be a problem as Sun Country has a safe flying record. 

I thank you for your consideration in this matter. 

JohifStone 

3007 AxidrewAve. 

Lansing, MI 48906-2515
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ELIANA NOEL,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§ No. 245, 2015

§

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware,

§ in and for New Castle County,

§ Cr. ID No. 1306002361 

§ 

§

§

Submitted: August 18, 2015

 Decided: September 1, 2015

ORDER

This 1

st day of September 2015, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On May 15, 2015, the appellant filed a notice of appeal from a April 

16, 2015 Superior Court order sentencing her for a violation of probation. The 

appellant’s opening brief and appendix were due on or before July 6, 2015.

(2) On July 9, 2015, the Chief Deputy Clerk sent a notice of brief 

delinquency to the appellant. On July 20, 2015, the Chief Deputy Clerk issued a 

Supreme Court Rule 29(b) notice, by certified mail, directing the appellant to show 

cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for her failure to file an opening 

brief and appendix and for her failure to pay the required filing fee. On August 5, 

2015, the certified notice to show cause was returned in an envelope marked 

“Return to Sender, Not Deliverable Address, Unable to Forward.” The notice to 
2

show cause was sent again, by first class mail, to the address on record with the 

Department of Correction, on August 5, 2015. 

(3) The appellant has failed to respond to the notice show cause and still 

has not filed an opening brief or paid the required filing fee. Under these 

circumstances, dismissal of this appeal is deemed to be unopposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, under Supreme Court 

Rules 3(b)(2) and 29(b), that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 67 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 67

 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Armed Services 
                   in the One Hundred Sixth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 1999

   Mr. Spence (for himself and Mr. Skelton) submitted the following 
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Armed Services 
                   in the One Hundred Sixth Congress.

    Resolved, 

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on Armed Services (hereinafter in 
this resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), including the 
expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out of the 
applicable accounts of the House of Representatives for committee 
salaries and expenses, not more than $10,599,855 for the One Hundred 
Sixth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $5,114,079 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 1999, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2000; and
            (2) not more than $5,485,776 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2000, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2001.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
 

85-19
 

Withdrawn on April 19, 2013
 
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

85-19 

July 29, 1985 

REFERENCE: 

[*1] 4021(a)(1) Plans Covered. Tax Qualification in Practice 

4021(a)(2) Plans Covered. Tax Qualification by IRS Determination 

4021(b)(7) Plans Covered. Foreign Plans 

OPINION: 

This is in response to your question as to whether PBGC guarantees extend to a plan established by a Guam 

corporation or proprietorship for employees who are residents of Guam. As we understand it, all requirements for U.S. 

tax-qualification are met, except that the plan's trust is located in Guam. 

Guam is an unincorporated territory of the United States. 48 U.S.C. § 1421(a). Practically all inhabitants of Guam 

residing there or born there after April 11, 1899 are citizens of the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1407. Therefore, the 

exemption from PBGC coverage in ERISA section 4021(b)(7) for plans established and maintained outside of the United 

States primarily for the benefit of nonresident aliens does not apply. 

In PBGC Opinion Letter 76-109, September 14, 1976, the PBGC stated that "a defined benefit plan of a Guamian 

employer which maintains a trust organized and established in Guam or otherwise outside of the United States would 

not be a tax-qualified plan under the [Internal Revenue] Code and would be excluded from [*2] the termination 

insurance provisions of Title IV of the Act." The rationale for the conclusion in this letter was that section 4021(a)(2) 

of ERISA provides that only plans meeting the requirements of Internal Revenue Code section 401(a) are covered, and 

that one of the requirements of section 401(a) is that a trust under a plan must be "created or organized in the United 

States." The Opinion noted that section 7701(a)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code defines "United States" as "only the 

States and the District of Columbia," and concluded that a trust with a situs in Guam does not meet the requirements for 

coverage because it is not a United States trust. This letter did not consider the question of whether a Guamian plan is 

covered pursuant to section 4021(a)(1) of ERISA. 

In a later letter, No. 77-172, December 23, 1977, the PBGC stated that, with regard to a plan established in Puerto 

Rico, "the PBGC does not consider the requirement of [Internal Revenue] Code § 401(a) that the trust under the plan 

be 'created or organized in the United States' to be a bar to Title IV coverage under § 4021(a)(1) of [ERISA] provided 

that the plan has otherwise met in practice the tax qualification [*3] requirements of the [Internal Revenue] Code." 

Similarly, where a plan established in Guam with a non-United States trust otherwise has in practice met the tax 

qualification requirements of the Internal Revenue Code for the period required by section 4021(a)(1) of ERISA, and 

is not a plan described in section 4021(b) of ERISA, the plan is subject to Title IV coverage. 

Edward R. Mackiewicz 

General Counsel
§ 170.623 How are TTP projects and activities included in a self-governance agreement? To include a TTP project or activity in a self-governance agreement, the following information is required: ( a ) All work must be included in the FHWA-approved TTPTIP; and
( b ) All other information required under 25 CFR part 1000, subpart K.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

74-11 

November 27, 1974 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4007(a). Payment of Premiums. Due Dates

4007(b) Payment of Premiums. Penalties and Interest 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your recent inquiry and in confirmation of the telephonic answers given to you by Mr.

Anderson of our staff on November 11, 1974. 

Facts: A corporation has a fiscal year ending October 31, 1975.

On October 30, 1975 Plan and Trust documents were signed

establishing a defined benefit Pension plan and Trust

effective November 1, 1974. The plan year is stated in the

documents to be November 1st through October 31st.

Question: As premiums are due thirty days after the beginning of the

Plan year would the Plan have to pay the interest and the

penalty from December 1, 1974?

Question: When would the premiums be due so as to avoid the interest

and penalty payments?

Answer: The initial premiums are due 30 days after the date of

signing the documents and establishing the plan. The

interest and penalty charges do not arise until the

expiration of this due date.

Henry Rose 

Acting General Counsel
----

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-82/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of goods - Article 28 EC - Quantitative restrictions - Measures having equivalent effect - Marketing of frozen bakery products)

(2006/C 281/20)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia, Agent)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou and M. Apessos, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 28 EC — National legislation considering the ‘bake-off’ process (thawing and reheating of pre-baked and frozen bread) to be a process of manufacturing bread and allowing only bakeries to sell bread manufactured in that way.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

----

(1)OJ C 93, 16.04.2005

----
# C_2014121EN.01000301.xml

| 24.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/3

---

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Commission Regulation (EU) No 932/2012 implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for household tumble driers

(Publication of transitional uniform symbol for the implementation of Commission Regulation (EU) No 932/2012)

(Publication of transitional uniform symbol for the implementation of Commission Regulation (EU) No 932/2012)

(2014/C 121/03)

According to Annex I.1(1) to Commission Regulation (EU) No 932/2012 (1) implementing Directive 2009/125/EC (2), the cycle which dries cotton laundry (with an initial moisture content of the load of 60 %) up to a remaining moisture content of the load of 0 % (hereinafter the ‘standard cotton programme’) shall be used for the calculation of the energy consumption and other parameters for household tumble driers.

1

2

That cycle shall be clearly identifiable on the programme selection device(s) of the household tumble drier or the household tumble drier display, if any, or both, and indicated as ‘standard cotton programme’ or by a uniform symbol or an appropriate combination thereof.

To facilitate the clear identification of the ‘standard cotton programme’ cycle on the programme selection device of the household tumble drier or the household tumble drier display, only the following uniform symbol should be used as an alternative to ‘standard cotton programme’:

Image

Where more than one selection device or option in the display of the household tumble drier is needed, the same symbol applies.

The booklet of instructions provided by the manufacturer shall indicate that the ‘standard cotton programme’ can be identified by this symbol, by 1 August 2015 at the latest.

This transitional symbol will ultimately be replaced by a symbol provided in harmonised standard(s), for the purposes of compliance and verification of compliance with the requirements of Commission Regulation (EU) No 932/2012, the reference numbers of which have to be published in the Official Journal of the European Union in accordance with Articles 9 and 10 of Directive 2009/125/EC.

Official Journal of the European Union

---

(1)  OJ L 278, 12.10.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 285, 31.10.2009, p. 10.

2

---
EXHIBIT 32.2 – 906 Certification





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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Genmed Holding Corp. (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.





Date: Septeber 15, 2011
/s/ Randy HibmaRandy Hibma

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("Section 906"), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Genmed Holding Corp., and will be retained by Genmed Holding Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
From: John Bradfield/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Bill Schrock/RTP/USEPA/US Cc: "Higgins, Cortney " <Cortney _Higgins@omb.eop.gov>, Kelley Spence/RTP/USEPA/US, Robin Dunkins/RTP/USEPA/US Date: 07/05/2012 12:44 PM Subject: Re: Pulp and Paper RTR draft final rule

________________________________________ Cortney , Here are the supporting documents and the latest draft of the RTC. Let us know if y ou need any thing else.

John Bradfield Environmental Engineer U.S. EPA Natural Resources Group Sector Policies and Pr ograms Division, OAQPS 109 T.W. Alexander Drive (E143

- 03) Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: 919.541.3062
### §1580. Emergency essential employees: designation

(a) Criteria for Designation.—The Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the military department concerned may designate as an emergency essential employee any employee of the Department of Defense, whether permanent or temporary, the duties of whose position meet all of the following criteria:

(1) It is the duty of the employee to provide immediate and continuing support for combat operations or to support maintenance and repair of combat essential systems of the armed forces.

(2) It is necessary for the employee to perform that duty in a combat zone after the evacuation of nonessential personnel, including any dependents of members of the armed forces, from the zone in connection with a war, a national emergency declared by Congress or the President, or the commencement of combat operations of the armed forces in the zone.

(3) It is impracticable to convert the employee's position to a position authorized to be filled by a member of the armed forces because of a necessity for that duty to be performed without interruption.

(b) Eligibility of Employees of Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities.—A nonappropriated fund instrumentality employee is eligible for designation as an emergency essential employee under subsection (a).

(c) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) The term "combat zone" has the meaning given that term in section 112(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

(2) The term "nonappropriated fund instrumentality employee" has the meaning given that term in section 1587(a)(1) of this title.

(Added Pub. L. 106–65, div. A, title XI, §1103(b)(1), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 776.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 112(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, referred to in subsec. (c)(1), is classified to section 112(c)(2) of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 1580, added Pub. L. 87–651, title II, §206(a), Sept. 7, 1962, 76 Stat. 519, related to appointment of civilian employees by the Secretary of Defense, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 89–554, §8(a), Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 663.
### [§2386. Renumbered §3793]
1 The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-3833

___________ Michael Britt Hodges, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Mike Huckabee, Governor, * Eastern District of Arkansas. * Appellee. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________ Submitted: June 4, 2004 Filed: June 17, 2004

___________ Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Michael Hodges challenges the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Hodges alleged that Governor Huckabee violated his constitutional rights when he denied Hodges’s clemency application. The district court 1 dismissed the case after concluding it was barred by res judicata. For the reasons explained by the district court, we agree that the action is barred by the-2- doctrine of res judicata. We also find no error in the decision of the district court to transfer this case from another judge to Judge Eisele. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________