alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

VANESSA B. JACKSON,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2024-1248

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 22-3548, Judge Amanda L. Meredith.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

Before LOURIE, PROST, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs moves to dismiss this 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction on timeliness grounds. 

Vanessa B. Jackson has not responded to the motion.

Case: 24-1248 Document: 4 Page: 1 Filed: 02/06/2024
2 JACKSON v. MCDONOUGH

The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims entered final judgment in this case on August 28, 

2023. The Veterans Court received Ms. Jackson’s notice of 

appeal 92 days later on November 28, 2023. 

To be timely, a notice of appeal must be received by the 

Veterans Court within 60 days of the entry of judgment. 

See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); Fed. Cir. R. 1(a)(1)(D). Like appeals 

from district courts, the statutorily prescribed time for filing appeals from the Veterans Court is jurisdictional. See 

Wagner v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013); 

see also Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 438–39 (2011) 

(indicating jurisdictional restrictions on the time for taking 

an appeal under section 7292(a)). Because Ms. Jackson’s 

notice of appeal was not filed within 60 days of the judgment of the Veterans Court, this court lacks jurisdiction 

and must dismiss.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

February 6, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

Case: 24-1248 Document: 4 Page: 2 Filed: 02/06/2024
§ 211.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) The regulations in this part govern leases and permits for the development of Indian tribal oil and gas, geothermal, and solid mineral resources except as provided under paragraph (e) of this section. These regulations are applicable to lands or interests in lands the title to which is held in trust by the United States or is subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States. These regulations are intended to ensure that Indian mineral owners desiring to have their resources developed are assured that they will be developed in a manner that maximizes their best economic interests and minimizes any adverse environmental impacts or cultural impacts resulting from such development.
( b ) The regulations in this part shall be subject to amendment at any time by the Secretary of the Interior. No regulation that becomes effective after the date of approval of any lease or permit shall operate to affect the duration of the lease or permit, rate of royalty, rental, or acreage unless agreed to by all parties to the lease or permit.
( c ) The regulations of the Bureau of Land Management, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, and the Minerals Management Service that are referenced in §§ 211.4, 211.5, and 211.6 are supplemental to the regulations in this part, and apply to parties holding leases or permits for development of Indian mineral resources unless specifically stated otherwise in this part or in such other Federal regulations.
( d ) Nothing in the regulations in this part is intended to prevent Indian tribes from exercising their lawful governmental authority to regulate the conduct of persons, businesses, operations or mining within their territorial jurisdiction.
( e ) The regulations in this part do not apply to leasing and development governed by regulations in 25 CFR parts 213 (Members of the Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma), 226 (Osage), or 227 (Wind River Reservation).
###### Editorial Note on Part 900

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

#### § 900.173 Is the recommended decision always final?

No. Any party to the appeal may file precise and specific written objections to the recommended decision, or any other comments, within 15 days of receiving the recommended decision. You shall serve a copy of your objections on the other party. The recommended decision will become final 15 days after the Indian tribe or tribal organization receives the ALJ's recommended decision, unless a written statement of objections is filed with the Secretary of Health and Human Services or the IBIA during the 15-day period. If no party files a written statement of objections within 15 days, the recommended decision will become final.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0632

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

LORENZO JAMES HARRIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good 

cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an 

extension of time to and including April 19, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 21 2024

03/21/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0632
### §321. Eligibility to serve as trustee

(a) A person may serve as trustee in a case under this title only if such person is—

(1) an individual that is competent to perform the duties of trustee and, in a case under chapter 7, 12, or 13 of this title, resides or has an office in the judicial district within which the case is pending, or in any judicial district adjacent to such district; or

(2) a corporation authorized by such corporation's charter or bylaws to act as trustee, and, in a case under chapter 7, 12, or 13 of this title, having an office in at least one of such districts.

(b) A person that has served as an examiner in the case may not serve as trustee in the case.

(c) The United States trustee for the judicial district in which the case is pending is eligible to serve as trustee in the case if necessary.

(Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2561; Pub. L. 98–353, title III, §428, July 10, 1984, 98 Stat. 369; Pub. L. 99–554, title II, §§206, 257(c), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3098, 3114.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

#### legislative statements

Section 321 indicates that an examiner may not serve as a trustee in the case.

#### senate report no. 95–989

Section 321 is adapted from current Bankruptcy Act §45 [section 73 of former title 11] and Bankruptcy Rule 209. Subsection (a) specifies that an individual may serve as trustee in a bankruptcy case only if he is competent to perform the duties of trustee and resides or has an office in the judicial district within which the case is pending, or in an adjacent judicial district. A corporation must be authorized by its charter or bylaws to act as trustee, and, for chapter 7 or 13 cases, must have an office in any of the above mentioned judicial districts.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1986—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 99–554, §257(c), inserted reference to chapter 12 in two places.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 99–554, §206, added subsec. (c).

1984—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 98–353 substituted "the case" for "a case" after "an examiner in".

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

#### Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Effective date and applicability of amendment by section 206 of Pub. L. 99–554 dependent upon the judicial district involved, see section 302(d), (e) of Pub. L. 99–554, set out as a note under section 581 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Amendment by section 257 of Pub. L. 99–554 effective 30 days after Oct. 27, 1986, but not applicable to cases commenced under this title before that date, see section 302(a), (c)(1) of Pub. L. 99–554.

#### 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 535 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
H. RES. 535

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives concerning use of 
  additional projected surplus funds to supplement Medicare funding, 
       previously reduced under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 27, 2000

   Mr. Bilbray (for himself and Mrs. Wilson) submitted the following 
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and 
      in addition to the Committee on Commerce, for a priod to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives concerning use of 
  additional projected surplus funds to supplement Medicare funding, 
       previously reduced under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

Whereas Congress is responsible for oversight and spending under the Medicare 
        program;
Whereas the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 was passed in response to major economic 
        concerns about inflation in costs in the Medicare program;
Whereas the savings resulting from enactment of that Act exceeded the estimates 
        at the time of enactment and has resulted in payment rates for classes 
        of providers below the rates previously anticipated;
Whereas the Congress adjusted some elements of the Medicare program in the 
        Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999;
Whereas a significant number of Medicare+Choice organizations is withdrawing, or 
        considering withdrawing, from the Medicare+Choice program because of 
        inadequate reimbursement rates;
Whereas the Medicare prescription drug bill pending in the Congress will delay 
        the date by which Medicare+Choice organizations must decide whether to 
        remain in the Medicare+Choice program from July 1, 2000, to October 1, 
        2000; and
Whereas, because of improved economic performance, it is anticipated that the 
        Congressional Budget Office in its mid-year reestimates will project 
        dramatically increased non-Social Security surpluses above those assumed 
        in the adoption of the most recent Congressional Budget Resolution for 
        fiscal year 2001: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that, upon receipt of such mid-year CBO re-estimates, the House of 
Representatives shall promptly assess the budgetary implications of 
such reestimates and provide for appropriate adjustments to the 
Medicare program during this legislative session.
                                 <all>
```
Secretary of Labor & Board Chair

Secretary of Treasury

Secretary of Commerce 

Gordon Hartogensis

Director

Chief of Staff Office of Equal

Employment Opportunity

Plan Asset & Data 

Management 

Department 

Actuarial Services 

& Technology 

Department

Board of Directors

Small group that represents interests of 

employers with pension plans, employee 

organizations & the general public.

Advisory Committee

Participant Services 

Department

Office of Chief 

Financial Officer

Office of Information 

Technology

Office of Policy & 

External Affairs

Office of Benefits 

Administration

Office of General 

Counsel

Office of Inspector General Office of the Participant &

Plan Sponsor Advocate

Corporate Controls 

& Reviews 

Department

Bankruptcy, Litigation 

& Terminations

Bankruptcy, 

Transactions & 

Terminations

Enterprise 

Cybersecurity 

Department

General Law & 

Operations

Program Law

& Policy

Corporate 

Investments 

Department

Business Innovation 

Services Department

Enterprise Governance 

Department

Information Technology 

Infrastructure Operations 

Department

Financial Operations 

Department

Communications 

Outreach & Legislative 

Affairs Department

Policy Research & 

Analysis Department

Office of the Director

Ted Goldman Director

November 27, 2023

Kristin Chapman

Chief of Staff

Nicholas J. Novak

Inspector General

Constance Donovan

Participant & Plan 

Sponsor Advocate

Brenecia Watson

Director

Tim Hurr 

Director

Patricia Kelly

Chief Financial Officer

Paul Chalmers

Deputy General Counsel

Dan Liebman

Deputy General Counsel

Craig T. Fessenden

Deputy General Counsel

Kartar Khalsa

Deputy General Counsel

Janice

Brown-Taylor

Deputy Chief of Benefits 

Administration

Ann Orr

Chief Policy Officer

Budget Department

Human Resources 

Department

Procurement 

Department

Workplace Solutions 

Department

Quality Management 

Department

Office of Management 

& Administration

Alisa Cottone

Director 

Alice Maroni 

Chief Management 

Officer

Kimberly Mayo

Director

Arrie Etheridge Director

Arrie Etheridge

Acting Director

Bridget Wilson

Director

Robert Scherer

Chief Information Officer

Karen Morris

General Counsel

Vidhya Shyamsunder 

Director

Melanie Carter Director

Corporate Finance & 

Restructuring

Department

Office of Negotiations 

& Restructuring

Negotiations & 

Restructuring

Actuarial Department

Plan Compliance

Department

Adi Berger 

Director 

John Hanley

Chief of Negotiations & 

Restructuring

John Hanley

Deputy Chief of 

Negotiations & 

Restructuring

Jim Donofrio

Director

Rossi Marcelin Director Joshua Kossoy

Director .

Michael Rae

Deputy Chief 

Policy Officer

JR Wycinsky

Director

David Foley

Chief of Benefits 

Administration 

Michael Hutchins

Director

Scott Young

Director

John Greenberg 

Chief Investment Officer 

Jennifer Messina 

Director

Lisa Carter

Director 

Walt Luiza 

Director
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

75-31 

December 12, 1975 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4044(a) Allocation of Assets. Requirement of Following Statutory Allocation Provisions 

OPINION: 

 This is a confirmation of your telephone conversation with * * * of my staff on August 29, 1975. 

* * * of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (hereinafter the "PBGC") telephoned you on July 23, 1975, and

inquired about the status of the Plan Administrator's compliance with our letter of June 11, 1975. The Plan

Administrator, * * * had referred us to you. You stated that you were representing * * * regarding the substance of our

letter of June 11, 1975, and indicated that "complexities of the new law" were causing delays in effecting the adjustments

in benefit distributions which we requested, but that you would contact either * * * of the PBGC, before July 25, 1975,

with your position and proposal for accomplishing the above-mentioned adjustments. 

I am advised that you informed * * * on August 29, 1975, that the distributions made by the Plan on January 3 and

21, 1975 were neither in violation of applicable law nor in conflict with the Plan provisions. The Plan's receipt of a

favorable determination letter from the Internal Revenue Service regarding the Plan termination constitutes, in [*2] your

view, an "approval" of the distributions. This is so, you argue, due to an "exception" allowed by the Internal Revenue

Service for certain distributions which might otherwise violate § 401(a)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code; the approval

of the Plan termination by the Internal Revenue Service is, in your opinion, a granting of the "exception." 

 You should be aware that any "approval" letter issued with respect to a request for a determination upon termination

is subject to the proposed distributions being in compliance with § 4044 of the Act. To the extent reallocations are

required pursuant to § 4044 of the Act the "approval" letter is not valid. Furthermore, IRS determination letters are

effective, to the extent that they are, only with respect to tax matters. Such letters relate only to the approval of the form

of a plan under the Internal Revenue Code and are "not an opinion on the effect of other federal or local statutes." [See

IRS Rorm 5378 (12/71).] Section 4044 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (hereinafter the "Act")

creates substantive rights which are enforceable without regard to tax consequences. See Act, § § 502, 4003(e)(1). 

If our understanding [*3] of your present position is correct, it would appear that you are no longer agreeable to

taking steps to remedy the apparent violations of Title IV discussed in our letter of June 11, 1975. If that is not correct,

please let me know immediately. Unless we hear from you within 12 days of the date of this letter, we will feel free to

take appropriate action to effectuate the Plan's compliance with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
#### § 32.5 Evaluation of implementation of Pub. L. 95-561.

The Director, Office Indian Education Programs will develop guidelines for evaluating all functional and programmatic responsibilities associated with title XI of the Education Amendments of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-561), and in the January 1, 1981 annual report, as provided in section 1136, of Pub. L. 95-561 include a statement of the specific program toward implementing these policies.
### §1789a. Credit unions as depositaries of public money; fiscal agents; duties

Any credit union the accounts of which are insured under this subchapter shall be a depositary of public money and may be employed as fiscal agent of the United States. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to deposit public money in any such insured credit union, and shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to enable such credit unions to become depositaries of public money and fiscal agents of the United States. Each credit union shall perform all such reasonable duties as depositaries of public money and fiscal agent of the United States as may be required of it including services in connection with the collection of taxes and other obligations owed the United States.

(June 26, 1934, ch. 750, title II, §210, as added Pub. L. 95–147, §2(c)(1), Oct. 28, 1977, 91 Stat. 1227.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 210 of act June 26, 1934, ch. 750, was renumbered section 211 and is classified to section 1790 of this title.
ATTACHMENT HEADER SHEET

Attachment Number 029

Attachment Name

CAS RN 1456803-14-7 Manufacturing Process and Impurity Profile

Associated PMN Section Number

N/A

Contains CBI

Report Number

 Sanitized Version
All CBI has been removed
Exhibit 32   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 of Atlantica, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly Report), we, Alan D. Gordon, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Shelley Goff, Secretary, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Registrant, 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.  Date:November 10, 2009By:/s/Alan D. GordonAlan D. Gordon, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director  Date:November10, 2009By:/s/Shelley GoffShelley Goff, Secretary, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
IV

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 68

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Permanent Select Committee

on Intelligence in the One Hundred Sixth Congress.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 12, 1999

Mr. GOSS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on House Administration

RESOLUTION

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Permanent Select

Committee on Intelligence in the One Hundred Sixth

Congress.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

3 For the expenses of the Permanent Select Committee

4 on Intelligence (hereinafter in this resolution referred to

5 as the ‘‘Committee’’), including the expenses of all staff

6 salaries, there shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts

7 of the House of Representatives for committee salaries

8 and expenses, not more than $5,369,030.17 for the One

9 Hundred Sixth Congress.
2

•HRES 68 IH

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

2 Of the amount specified in section 1—

3 (1) not more than $2,609,105.06 shall be avail4 able for expenses incurred during the period begin5 ning at noon on January 3, 1999, and ending imme6 diately before noon on January 3, 2000; and

7 (2) not more than $2,759,925.11 shall be avail8 able for expenses incurred during the period begin9 ning at noon on January 3, 2000, and ending imme10 diately before noon on January 3, 2001.

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner

15 directed by the Committee on House Administration.

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by

19 the Committee on House Administration.

Æ
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Pentagon Force Protection Agency

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Our Agency    -  Leadership      -  Chris Bargery             
    -  Lewis Ratchford Jr             
    -  Shelley A Verdejo             
    -  Dr. James A. Day             
    -  Woodrow G. Kusse 
  -  Publications             
  -  Our Mission, Vision & Values             
  -  History             
  -  PFPA Intranet (PFPA Only)             
  -  PFPA Extranet (CAC Only) 
-  Topics    -  Visiting the Pentagon             
  -  CAC Issuance             
  -  Parking Information             
  -  Flags Over Pentagon             
  -  Vehicle Towing             
  -  Reporting Suspicious Activity             
  -  Lost & Found 
-  Careers		 
-  Contact		 

HomePrivacy Act Statement

**HOME /  PRIVACY ACT  /   NO FEAR ACT /   ACCESSIBILITY  /  FOIA**

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
§ 81.40 What happens if a ballot is spoiled before it is cast? If a ballot is spoiled before it is cast, this section applies. ( a ) The registered voter may return the spoiled ballot to the Secretarial Election Board by mail or in person at the local Bureau office with a request for a new ballot before the election date. The new ballot will be promptly provided to the registered voter. The Secretarial Election Board must retain all “spoiled uncast ballots” for recordkeeping purposes.
( b ) If polling sites are required, the voter may return the spoiled ballot to the polling site worker and request a new ballot. Upon receiving the new ballot, the voter must then complete the voting process. The polling site worker will mark the spoiled ballot “spoiled uncast” and record that the ballot has been spoiled. The polling site worker must retain all “spoiled uncast ballots” for recordkeeping purposes.