alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1539. Financial assistance

#### (a) Processing of applications

Within 12 months after October 29, 1992, the Secretary of Commerce shall develop and, after notice and opportunity for public comment, promulgate regulations or guidelines to ensure that a completed application for a grant, contract, or other financial assistance under a nondiscretionary assistance program shall be processed and approved or disapproved within 75 days after submission of the application to the responsible program office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

#### (b) Notification of applicant

Not later than 14 days after the date on which the Secretary of Commerce receives an application for a contract, grant, or other financial assistance provided under a nondiscretionary assistance program administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Secretary shall indicate in writing to the applicant whether or not the application is complete and, if not complete, shall specify the additional material that the applicant must provide to complete the application.

#### (c) Exemption

In the case of a program for which the recipient of a grant, contract, or other financial assistance is specified by statute to be, or has customarily been, a State or an interstate fishery commission, such financial assistance may be provided by the Secretary to that recipient on a sole-source basis, notwithstanding any other provision of law.

#### (d) "Nondiscretionary assistance program" defined

In this section, the term "nondiscretionary assistance program" means any program for providing financial assistance—

(1) under which the amount of funding for, and the intended recipient of, the financial assistance is specified by Congress; or

(2) the recipients of which have customarily been a State or an interstate fishery commission.

(Pub. L. 102–567, title IV, §404, Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4292.)
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Information Holdings Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mason
Slaine, Chief Executive 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.


/s/ Mason Slaine


Mason Slaine
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2002
| **RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS (Details) (USD $)** | 3 Months Ended |
|--------------------------------------------------|----------------|
||
| Gross Management Fee                             | $ 3,180        | $ 7,465 |
| Series One [Member]                              |           |   |
| Gross Management Fee                             | 0              | 0 |
| Series Two [Member]                              |           |   |
| Gross Management Fee                             | 0              | 0 |
| Series Three [Member]                            |           |   |
| Gross Management Fee                             | 3,180          | 7,465 |
| Series Four [Member]                             |           |   |
| Gross Management Fee                             | 0              | 0 |
| Series Five [Member]                             |           |   |
| Gross Management Fee                             | 0              | 0 |
| Series Six [Member]                              |           |   |
| Gross Management Fee                             | $ 0            | $ 0 |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Gross amount of management fee during the period.
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**bctc_GrossManagementFee**Namespace Prefix:**bctc_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**debit**Period Type:**duration |
### §713a–3. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Mar. 8, 1938, ch. 44, §3, 52 Stat. 107, referred to stock of the Delaware corporation.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE ENCAD,
INC. DECEMBER 31, 1997 FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,265
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     29,155
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,118
<PP&E>                                          23,256
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,431
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  90,295
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,300
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,577
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    90,295
<SALES>                                        149,041
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               149,041
<CGS>                                           78,259
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   78,259
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                44,289
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,528
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,099
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,429
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,429
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.45


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7324

In Re: NATHANIEL BRANDT ROBINSON, Petitioner.
On Petition For Writ of Mandamus. (CA-04-462) Submitted: December 12, 2005 Decided: December 30, 2005 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel Brandt Robinson, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Nathaniel Brandt Robinson petitions for writ of mandamus. He seeks an order compelling the Clerk of the United States Supreme Court to accept his petition for writ of certiorari as timely filed. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. SeeIn re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). “Mandamus ‘has traditionally been used in the federal courts only to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.’” United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting Will v. United States , 389 U.S. 90, 95 (1967)). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers , 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). The relief sought by Robinson is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED
### §649c. Authorization of appropriations

At least one small business international program shall be established within each region of the Department of Commerce. There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $1,500,000 for each fiscal year 1981, 1982, and 1983, to carry out the program established in section 649b of this title.

(Pub. L. 96–481, title III, §303, Oct. 21, 1980, 94 Stat. 2332.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the Small Business Act which comprises this chapter.
§ 1311.10 How does TVA make efforts to accommodate intergovernmental viewpoints? ( a ) If a state process provides a state process recommendation to TVA through its single point contact, TVA either: ( 1 ) Accepts the recommendation;
( 2 ) Reaches a mutually agreeable solution with the state process; or
( 3 ) Provides the single point of contact (including any regional or local office delegated a review and comment role by the state process) with written explanation of the decision in such form as TVA in its discretion deems appropriate. TVA may also supplement the written explanation by providing the explanation to the single point of contact by telephone, other telecommunications, meeting with the single point of contact, and, as appropriate, other interested officials or offices, or other means.
( b ) In any explanation under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, TVA informs the single point of contact that: ( 1 ) TVA will not implement its decision for at least 10 days after the single point of contact receives the explanation; or
( 2 ) TVA's General Manager has reviewed the decision and determined that, because of unusual circumstances, the waiting period of at least 10 days is not feasible.
( c ) For purposes of computing the waiting period under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the explanation is presumed to have been received five days after the date of mailing of such notification.
# C_2006331EN.01004202.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/42

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2006 — Weber v Commission

(Case T-290/05) (1)

1

(Access to documents of the Community institutions - Refusal - Application initiating proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility - No need to adjudicate)

(2006/C 331/93)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Friedrich Weber (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: W. Declair, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and C. Ladenburger, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Secretariat-General of the Commission of 27 May 2005, rejecting the request for access by the applicant to a letter sent by the Directorate General for Competition to the Federal German Government concerning State aid proceedings.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible;

| 2. | The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 257, 15.10.2005.

1

---
#### § 95.40 [Reserved]
### **CHAPTER 78—SUPERCONDUCTIVITY AND COMPETITIVENESS**

Sec.
5201.
Findings and purposes.
5202.
National Action Plan on Advanced Superconductivity Research and Development.
5203.
Department of Energy.
5204.
National Institute of Standards and Technology.
5205.
National Science Foundation.
5206.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
5207.
Department of Defense.
5208.
International cooperation.
5209.
Technology transfer.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7470

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DEVIN GALLAGHER,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Ellen Lipton Hollander, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cr-00479-ELH-1)

Submitted: June 15, 2023 Decided: June 20, 2023

Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Devin Gallagher, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7470 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Devin Gallagher appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. Upon review, we discern no abuse of 

discretion in the district court’s denial of Gallagher’s motion for compassionate release. 

See United States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 185 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Gallagher, No. 

1:19-cr-00479-ELH-1 (D. Md. Dec. 21, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7470 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
### §2279aa–14. Federal jurisdiction

Notwithstanding section 1349 of title 28 or any other provision of law:

(1) The Corporation shall be considered an agency under sections 1345 and 1442 of such title.

(2) All civil actions to which the Corporation is a party shall be deemed to arise under the laws of the United States and, to the extent applicable, shall be deemed to be governed by Federal common law. The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction of all such actions, without regard to amount of value.

(3) Any civil or other action, case, or controversy in a court of a State or any court, other than a district court of the United States, to which the Corporation is a party may at any time before trial be removed by the Corporation, without the giving of any bond or security—

(A) to the District Court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where the same is pending; or

(B) if there is no such district court, to the District Court of the United States for the district in which the principal office of the Corporation is located;

by following any procedure for removal for causes in effect at the time of such removal.

(4) No attachment or execution shall be issued against the Corporation or any of the property of the Corporation before final judgment in any Federal, State, or other court.

(Pub. L. 92–181, title VIII, §8.14, as added Pub. L. 100–233, title VII, §702, Jan. 6, 1988, 101 Stat. 1705.)
§ 154.210 Protests, interventions, and comments. ( a ) Unless the notice issued by the Commission provides otherwise, any protest, intervention or comment to a tariff filing made pursuant to this part must be filed in accordance with § 385.211 of this chapter, not later than 12 days after the subject tariff filing. A protest must state the basis for the objection. A protest will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make the protestant a party to the proceeding. A person wishing to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene.
( b ) Any motion to intervene must be filed not later than 12 days after the subject tariff filing in accordance with § 385.214 of this chapter.
EXHIBIT 32.1

           Certification Pursuant To 8 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


         In connection with the annual report of Motient Corporation, a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31,
2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Christopher W. Downie, Executive Vice President, Chief
Operating Officer and Treasurer, of the Company, certify, in my capacity as the
principal executive officer, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge
and based on my review of the Report:

     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 result of operations of the Company.



                            /s/  Christopher W. Downie
                            --------------------------
                            Christopher W. Downie

                            Executive Vice President, Chief
                            Operating Officer and Treasurer

                            July 2, 2004
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 130 (Thursday, July 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 39974]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17094]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Delegation of Authority No. 337]

Delegation by the Deputy Secretary of State Regarding Department 

Representation on the Investment Working Group Established by the 

SelectUSA Executive Order

    By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary by the laws of 

the United States, including the State Department Basic Authorities 

Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2651a), and delegated to me pursuant to 

Delegation of Authority 245-1, I hereby delegate to the Under Secretary 

for Economic, Energy, and Agricultural Affairs and Assistant Secretary 

for Economic, Energy, and Business Affairs, to the extent authorized by 

law, the authority to represent the Department on the Federal 

Interagency Investment Working Group established by the SelectUSA 

Executive Order of June 15, 2011. The Under Secretary or Assistant 

Secretary shall exercise this authority in consultation with other 

Department officials, bureaus, and offices as appropriate.

    Any act, executive order, regulation, or procedure subject to, or 

affected by, this delegation shall be deemed to be such act, executive 

order, regulation, or procedure as amended from time to time.

    Notwithstanding this delegation of authority, the Secretary, the 

Deputy Secretary, or the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources 

may at any time exercise any authority or function delegated by this 

delegation of authority.

    This delegation of authority shall be published in the Federal 

Register.

    Dated: June 24, 2011.

Thomas R. Nides,

Deputy Secretary of State, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2011-17094 Filed 7-6-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-07-P
```
EXHIBIT  32


              CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350 AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Aviation General,
Incorporated  and  Subsidiaries.  (the  "Company")  for the fiscal quarter ended
March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof  (the  "Report"),  the undersigned President and Principal Accounting and
Financial  Officer  of  the  Company  each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
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.

Dated:  April  30,  2004


                                    /s/  Wirt  D.  Walker  III
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                         Wirt  D.  Walker  III
                                         Director,  Chairman  of  the  Board,
                                         and  Chief  Executive  Officer,
                                         President  and  Treasurer

                                    /s/  Glenn  A.  Jackson
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                         Glenn  A.  Jackson
                                         Chief  Financial  Officer
(66 South. 381.)

No. 20708.

#### STATE ex rel. DE RUSSY v. LONG, Criminal Sheriff. In re DE RUSSY.

(Nov. 4, 1914.)

Habeas corpus by the State, on the relation of Edward De Russy, against M. J. Long, Criminal Sheriff. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff applies for certiorari or writ of prohibition.

Judgment of district court set aside, writ of habeas corpus sustained, and relator discharged.

A. Miles Coe and H. M. Wilkinson, both of New Orleans, for applicant. R. G. Pleasant, Atty. Gen., and Jos. E. Generelly, of New Orleans, for respondent. Frank D. Chretien, of New Orleans, in pro. per.

MONROE, C. J.

The material facts in this case being similar to those disclosed in the case of State ex rel. Francis O. Lanng v. M. J. Long, Criminal Sheriff, 66 South. 377,1 this day decided, and the law applicable thereto being the same:

For the reasons assigned in the case thus mentioned, it is ordered that the judgment of the district court, here made the subject of review, be set aside, that the writ of habeas corpus, issued at the instance of the relator herein, be sustained, and that relator be discharged.