alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Helps Patton, Texas Rebuild After Damage from Hurricane Harvey

WASHINGTON, Feb. 7, 2018 – Assistant to the Secretary for Rural Development Anne Hazlett today 

announced that USDA is helping Patton Village, Texas, rebuild after Hurricane Harvey caused extensive 

damage last summer.

USDA recently invested $9.4 million in Water and Environmental Program loans and grants to upgrade two 

water distribution systems in the city and build a new one. The rebuilt systems are expected to be completed in 

Fall 2019.

Patton officials had sought USDA assistance to upgrade the water systems months before Hurricane Harvey

destroyed much of the town and ravaged a huge swath of the South Central Texas coastline. After the storm 

struck the Texas coast on August 26, USDA asked city officials to update their application to reflect costs that 

take into account the additional damages the hurricane caused.

Hazlett visited Patton Village on Oct. 19, 2017. She met with the mayor and toured a neighborhood that 

received extensive flooding.

#

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Disclaimer: The contents of this guidance document does not have the force and effect of law 

and is not meant to bind the public in any way. This document is intended only to provide 

clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.

RD-GD-1993-13
### SUBCHAPTER III—ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES AND REQUIREMENTS
(67 South. 925)

No. 20984.

#### STATE v. FULCO. In re MABRY, Dist. Atty.

(Feb. 23, 1915.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1915.)

*(Syllabus by the Court.)*

Criminal Law <®==>9S2 — Suspension of Sentence — Power of Judge.

Under Act No. 74 of 1914, authorizing the judge to suspend a sentence .for the commission of a misdemeanor by a person who 'has never before been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor, the judge may suspend the sentence of a person who was convicted of a misdemeanor before the passage of the act.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2500, 2501; Dee. Dig. 982.]

Sam Fulco was convicted of retailing intoxicating liquors without a license, and, an order having been madé suspending sentence and paroling defendant, W. A. Mabry, District Attorney, applies for writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus.

Relator’s proceedings dismissed.

See, also, ante, p. 627, 67 South. 521.

R. G. Pleasant, Atty. Gen., W. A. Mabry Dist. Atty., and C. B. Prothro, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Shreveport, and G. A. Gondran, Asst. Atty. Gen., for relator. L. C. Blanchard, of Shreveport, City Judge, pro se.

O’NIELL, J.

The defendant was convicted of retailing intoxicating liquors without a license, and, on the 2d of March, 1914, was sentenced by the judge of the city court of Shreveport to pay a fine of $500 and costs and be imprisoned for six months, and, in default of the payment of the fine and costs, to be imprisoned for an additional term of six months.

On the 13th of September, 1914, the judge of the city court, after hearing evidence, and under authority of Act No. 74 of 1914, suspended the sentence and ordered the defendant paroled.

The district attorney has applied to this court for writs of prohibition and mandamus, to compel the judge of the city court to revoke his order suspending sentence and paroling the defendant.

Section 7 of Act No. 74 of 1914 provides:

> “That when there is a conviction of a misdemeanor in any court in this state, the judge may suspend sentence if he shall find that the defendant has never before been convicted of any felony or misdemeanor. The court shall permit testimony as to the general reputation of the defendant and as to whether the defendant has been convicted of a misdemeanor or felony, hut such testimony shall be submitted only upon the request of the defendant.”

The judge shows in his return that the defendant is more than 65 years of age, had never before been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor, and the evidence heard warranted the suspension of the sentence.

The only reason urged why the judge should not have suspended the sentence is that.the statute authorizing it was enacted after the conviction. We find no merit in this contention. The statute was not given a retroactive effect.. The section conferring the authority to suspend a sentence imposed for a misdemeanor does not relate to the conviction or sentence, but to the suspension of the sentence.

The relator’s proceedings are therefore dismissed.
S. 578 

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty 

An Act 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to eliminate the five-month waiting 

period for disability insurance benefits under such title for individuals with 

amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘ALS Disability Insurance Access 

Act of 2019’’. 

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF WAITING PERIOD FOR SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR DISABLED INDIVIDUALS 

WITH AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS (ALS). 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 223(a)(1) of the Social Security Act 

(42 U.S.C. 423(a)(1)) is amended in the matter following subparagraph (E) by striking ‘‘or (ii)’’ and inserting ‘‘(ii) in the case of 

an individual who has been medically determined to have 

amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, for each month beginning with the 

first month during all of which the individual is under a disability 

and in which the individual becomes entitled to such insurance 

benefits, or (iii)’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by this section 

shall apply with respect to applications for disability insurance 

benefits filed after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Exhibit 32.2 to 2008 10-Q

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection
with the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 of Convergys Corporation (the Company), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2008 (the Report), I, Earl C. Shanks, Chief Financial
Officer 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) 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 periods covered in the Report.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Earl C. Shanks     
|Earl C. Shanks         
|Chief Financial Officer
|                       
|August 1, 2008         



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to Convergys Corporation and will be retained by Convergys Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be considered filed as part of the
Form 10-Q.
### §2070. Criminal penalties

(a) Violation of section 2068 of this title is punishable by—

(1) imprisonment for not more than 5 years for a knowing and willful violation of that section;

(2) a fine determined under section 3571 of title 18; or

(3) both.

(b) Any individual director, officer, or agent of a corporation who knowingly and willfully authorizes, orders, or performs any of the acts or practices constituting in whole or in part a violation of section 2068 of this title shall be subject to penalties under this section without regard to any penalties to which that corporation may be subject under subsection (a).

(c)(1) In addition to the penalties provided by subsection (a), the penalty for a criminal violation of this chapter or any other Act enforced by the Commission may include the forfeiture of assets associated with the violation.

(2) In this subsection, the term "criminal violation" means a violation of this chapter or any other Act enforced by the Commission for which the violator is sentenced to pay a fine, be imprisoned, or both.

(Pub. L. 92–573, §21, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1225; Pub. L. 110–314, title II, §217(c)(1), (2), (d), Aug. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 3060.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2008—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 110–314, §217(c)(1), amended subsec. (a) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (a) read as follows: "Any person who knowingly and willfully violates section 2068 of this title after having received notice of noncompliance from the Commission shall be fined not more than $50,000 or be imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 110–314, §217(c)(2), struck out ", and who has knowledge of notice of noncompliance received by the corporation from the Commission," after "section 2068 of this title".

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 110–314, §217(d), added subsec. (c).

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective on the sixtieth day following Oct. 27, 1972, see section 34 of Pub. L. 92–573, set out as a note under section 2051 of this title.
# C_2011252EN.01005303.xml

| 27.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/53

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2011 — Antelo Sanchez and Others v Parliament

(Case F-78/10) (1)

1

(Staff cases - Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants - No need to adjudicate)

2011/C 252/116

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Pilar Antelo Sanchez (Brussels, Belgium) and Others (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and K. Zejdová, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the defendant’s decision, reproduced in the applicants’ pay slips, to limit the adjustment of their salaries, with effect from July 2009, to an increase of 1,85 % in the context of the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants on the basis of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on Case F-78/10 Antelo Sanchez and Others v Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on Case F-78/10 Antelo Sanchez and Others v Parliament.

| 2. | Each party is ordered to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010, p. 65.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             978
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,081
<ALLOWANCES>                                       734
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,751
<PP&E>                                         202,564
<DEPRECIATION>                                  36,640
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 208,520
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,925
<BONDS>                                        154,255
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           38,558
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (16,208)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   208,520
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               113,063
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   87,767
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,016
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,053
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    267
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                267
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       267
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2



Officer 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of CROWN FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. (the Company) for the year ended January 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Robert S. Thornton, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|       |  |                                                             
|------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|       |  | /S/    ROBERT S. THORNTON                                   
|       |  |                                                             
|Name:  |  | Robert S. Thornton                                          
|Title: |  | Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer



Date: April 30, 2004
§ 77.27 Interstate movement from modified accredited States and zones. Except for captive cervids from a qualified herd or monitored herd, as provided in §§ 77.36 and 77.37, respectively, captive cervids that originate in a modified accredited State or zone, and that are not known to be infected with or exposed to tuberculosis, may be moved interstate only in accordance with 9 CFR part 86 and, if moved anywhere other than directly to slaughter at a recognized slaughtering establishment, under one of the following additional conditions: ( a ) The captive cervids are from an accredited herd, are officially identified, and are accompanied by an ICVI stating that the accredited herd completed the testing necessary for accredited status with negative results within 24 months prior to the date of movement.
( b ) The captive cervids are sexually intact animals; are not from an accredited herd; are officially identified; and are accompanied by an ICVI stating that the herd from which they originated was negative to a whole herd test conducted within 1 year prior to the date of movement and that the individual animals to be moved were negative to an additional official tuberculin test conducted within 90 days prior to the date of movement; *Except that:* The additional test is not required if the animals are moved interstate within 6 months following the whole herd test.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0146) [78 FR 2066, Jan. 9, 2013]
## United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________
No. 23

- 3494

___________________________
United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.
Channing Tyler Williams

Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City

____________
Submitted: July 15 , 2024 Filed: July 19, 20 24 [ Unpublished ]

____________
Before KELLY
, GRASZ , and STRAS , Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

After pleading guilty to a firearms charge, Channing Williams received a 120

- month prison sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). An Anders brief suggests the sentence is procedurally and substantively flawed. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967).-2- We conclude otherwise. The district court 1 correctly determined that
Williams’s prior conviction for exhibiting a lethal weapon, see Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.030.1(4), was a crime of violence. See United States v. Larry
, 51 F.4th 290,
291

– 92 (8th Cir. 2022); see also U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(1)

. It then calculated the advisory range , selected a sentence, and explained its reasoning

. See United States
v. Feemster , 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion). In doing so, the court sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit a clear error of judgment. See United
States v. McDaniels

, 19 F. 4th 1065

, 1067 (8th Cir. 20 21 ) (per curiam) (explaining that the district court has “wide latitude to weigh the relevant sentencing factors” and “weighing [them] differently than a defendant would have preferred does not alone justify reversal” (citation omitted)).

We have also independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other

non

- frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83 (1988). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel permission
to withdraw.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
# C_2013336EN.01001602.xml

| 16.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2013 — Pioneer Hi-Bred International v Commission

(Case T-164/10) (1)

1

(Approximation of laws - Deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms - Authorisation procedure for placing on the market - Failure by the Commission to submit a draft decision to the Council - Action for failure to act)

2013/C 336/32

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (Johnston, Iowa, United States) (represented by: J. Temple Lang, Solicitor, and T. Müller Ibold, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin, N. Yerrell and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for a declaration under Article 265 TFEU that, by failing to submit to the Council a draft of the measures to be taken in accordance with Article 5(4) of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (OJ 1999 L 184, p. 23) and by failing to take all other measures that may, depending on the development of the decision-making procedure, be necessary to ensure the adoption of the decision referred to in Article 18 of Directive 2001/18/EC of 12 March 2001 of the European Parliament and the Council on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1), the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of Directive 2001/18.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that the European Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC by failing to submit to the Council a proposal relating to the measures to be taken pursuant to Article 5(4) of Council Decision of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that the European Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC by failing to submit to the Council a proposal relating to the measures to be taken pursuant to Article 5(4) of Council Decision of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.

1

---
# C_2007095EN.01002901.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/29

---

Action brought on 27 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

(Case C-114/07)

(2007/C 95/53)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by B. Stromsky and M. Šimerdová, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Czech Republic

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/24/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, or in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/24/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, or in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive;

1

| — | order the Czech Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 30 October 2005.

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 136, p. 85.

1

---