alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PUBLIC LAW 113–290—DEC. 19, 2014 128 STAT. 3291 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3608: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 113–625, Pt. 1 (Comm. on Natural Resources). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 160 (2014): 

Nov. 17, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 16, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 113–290 

113th Congress 

An Act 

To amend the Act of October 19, 1973, concerning taxable income to members 

of the Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians. 

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 ‘‘Grand Portage Band Per Capita 

Adjustment Act’’. 

SEC. 2. EQUAL TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PER CAPITA INCOME FOR 

PURPOSES OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE. 

Paragraph (4) of section 7 of the Act of October 19, 1973 

(25 U.S.C. 1407(4)) is amended by striking ‘‘pursuant to the agreements of such Band’’ and inserting ‘‘or the Grand Portage Band 

of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, or both, pursuant to the agreements of each Band’’. 

Approved December 19, 2014. 

25 USC 1401 

note. 

Grand Portage 

Band Per Capita 

Adjustment Act. 

Dec. 19, 2014 

[H.R. 3608] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1 with PUBLAWLAW
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

SANGSTAT MEDICAL CORPORATION:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-77300 and 33-80155 on Forms S-8 and Nos. 33-91994, 33-96766 and 333-20301 on
Forms S-3 of SangStat Medical Corporation of our report dated January 29, 1997,
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of SangStat Medical Corporation for
the year ended December 31, 1996.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
--------------------------------
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San Jose, California
March 11, 1997
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63
of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Power3
Medical Products, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer’s
knowledge, that:





The Company’s Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and that the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the
periods presented in the Form 10-Q.





Date:
August 11, 2009





/s/ Helen ParkHelen
      Park, Interim Chief Executive Officer/s/ John GinzlerJohn
      Ginzler, Chief Financial
Officer





The
forgoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q
pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63
of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company,
whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.
# C_2011152EN.01001801.xml

| 21.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/18

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 25 March 2011 — Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Margita Punakova

(Case C-148/11)

2011/C 152/32

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Upper Tribunal

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Applicant:

Defendant: Margita Punakova

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

In circumstances where a claimant:

| (a) | is a citizen of the Czech Republic; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

is a citizen of the Czech Republic;

| (b) | came to the United Kingdom before her country acceded to the EU; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

came to the United Kingdom before her country acceded to the EU;

| (c) | remained here following accession; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

remained here following accession;

| (d) | thereafter established herself in self-employment under Article 49 TFEU (ex. Article 43 TEC); |
| --- | --- |

(d)

thereafter established herself in self-employment under Article 49 TFEU (ex. Article 43 TEC);

| (e) | is no longer in self-employment; and |
| --- | --- |

(e)

is no longer in self-employment; and

| (f) | is the primary carer of a child who entered general education while she was established in self-employment, |
| --- | --- |

(f)

is the primary carer of a child who entered general education while she was established in self-employment,

does the claimant have a right to reside in the United Kingdom on the basis that:

| (a) | Regulation 1612/68 (1) applies, together with the reasoning of the European Court of Justice in Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Case C-413/99) [2002] ECR I-7091, London Borough of Harrow v Ibrahim (Case C-310/08) and Teixeira v London Borough of Lambeth (Case C-480/08); |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Regulation 1612/68 (1) applies, together with the reasoning of the European Court of Justice in Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Case C-413/99) [2002] ECR I-7091, London Borough of Harrow v Ibrahim (Case C-310/08) and Teixeira v London Borough of Lambeth (Case C-480/08);

1

Baumbast and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department

London Borough of Harrow v Ibrahim

Teixeira v London Borough of Lambeth

| (b) | there is a general principle of EU law that equates the position of workers and the self-employed; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

there is a general principle of EU law that equates the position of workers and the self-employed;

| (c) | it would impede or deter the freedom of establishment if the claimant did not have a right to reside; or |
| --- | --- |

(c)

it would impede or deter the freedom of establishment if the claimant did not have a right to reside; or

| (d) | some other basis? |
| --- | --- |

(d)

some other basis?

---

(1)  OJ L 257, p. 2

1

---
**EXHIBIT 10.1**

----

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

I, Bertrand Collomb, Chief Executive Officer of Lafarge, a *société anonyme* organized under French law, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Lafarge on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, to my knowledge, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Lafarge as of the dates and for the periods set forth therein.:

Date: April 25, 2003

|   | By:    | /s/ Bertrand Collomb    |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Name:  | Bertrand Collomb        |
|   | Title: | Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   |                    |
|   |   |                    |
|   |   |                    |
|   |   |                    |
|   |   |                    |
|   |   |                    |

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Lafarge and will be retained by Lafarge and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

37

----
Exhibit 23.2

Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-08891, 333-48883, 333-66707, 333-81273, 333-39730, 333-61582 and 333-65850) and the
Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-36112) of TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. of our report dated October 24, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Sawtek Inc. and subsidiaries as of September 30, 2000, which report appears as an exhibit in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2001.



Orlando,
Florida
March 25, 2002

---

QuickLinks
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

JT/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GLADYS CHEPKURIR KIPTABUT,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-70612

Agency No. A076-642-843

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 15, 2009** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Gladys Chepkurir Kiptabut, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) January 23, 2007, order

denying her motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

FILED

DEC 23 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JT/Research 2 07-70612

We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Ordonez v.

INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 2003), and we review de novo due process claims,

Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny in part and dismiss in

part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Kiptabut’s motion to reopen

because her motion was untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c), and Kiptabut failed to

establish changed country conditions or other special circumstances that would

warrant reopening, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381

F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The critical question is ... whether circumstances

have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate

claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution.”).

Kiptabut’s contention that the BIA violated her due process rights by failing

to review documents submitted with her motion to reopen is belied by the record.

See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on

a due process claim.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s April 19, 2007, order denying

Kiptabut’s motion to reconsider because this petition for review is not timely as to

that order. See Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 401-06 (1995).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
### §6004. Standards

#### (a) In general

Bicycle helmets manufactured 9 months or more after June 16, 1994, shall conform to—

(1) any interim standard described under subsection (b), pending the establishment of a final standard pursuant to subsection (c); and

(2) the final standard, once it has been established under subsection (c).

#### (b) Interim standards

The interim standards are as follows:

(1) The American National Standards Institute standard designated as "Z90.4–1984".

(2) The Snell Memorial Foundation standard designated as "B–90".

(3) The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard designated as "F 1447".

(4) Any other standard that the Commission determines is appropriate.

#### (c) Final standard

Not later than 60 days after June 16, 1994, the Commission shall begin a proceeding under section 553 of title 5 to—

(1) review the requirements of the interim standards set forth in subsection (a) and establish a final standard based on such requirements;

(2) include in the final standard a provision to protect against the risk of helmets coming off the heads of bicycle riders;

(3) include in the final standard provisions that address the risk of injury to children; and

(4) include additional provisions as appropriate.

Sections 7, 9, and 30(d) 1 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056, 2058, 2079(d)) shall not apply to the proceeding under this subsection and section 11 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 2060) shall not apply with respect to any standard issued under such proceeding. The final standard shall take effect 1 year from the date it is issued.

#### (d) Failure to meet standards

#### (1) Failure to meet interim standard

Until the final standard takes effect, a bicycle helmet that does not conform to an interim standard as required under subsection (a)(1) shall be considered in violation of a consumer product safety standard promulgated under the Consumer Product Safety Act [15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq.].

#### (2) Status of final standard

The final standard developed under subsection (c) shall be considered a consumer product safety standard promulgated under the Consumer Product Safety Act.

(Pub. L. 103–267, title II, §205, June 16, 1994, 108 Stat. 727.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 30(d) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, referred to in subsec. (c), was classified to section 2079(d) of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 110–314, title II, §237, Aug. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 3076.

The Consumer Product Safety Act, referred to in subsec. (d), is Pub. L. 92–573, Oct. 27, 1972, 86 Stat. 1207, which is classified generally to chapter 47 (§2051 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2051 of this title and Tables.

1 See References in Text note below.
EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 WNC Housing Tax Credit
Fund IV, L.P., Series 1 (the "Partnership") for the year ended March 31, 2003 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  and  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.,  section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  I,  Thomas  J.  Riha,  Chief
Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership,
hereby certify 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 result of operations of
          the Partnership.


/s/THOMAS J. RIHA
-----------------
Thomas J. Riha
Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
June 24, 2003
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
JUDGMENT
No. 04

- 13

- 00452

- CV
IN RE WILLA PETERS HUBBERD TESTAMENTARY TRUST
From the Probate Court No

. 2, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 1986

- PC

- 1440 Honorable Tom Rickhoff, Judge Presiding
BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE , JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the portions of the probate court’s orders adding the following provisions to the Willa Peters Hubberd Testamentary Trust as Article VI, Paragraphs A

- 3, A

- 4, A

- 5, and A

- 6 are AFFIRMED:
A

- 3. Mary Hubberd Dahlman shall apply for Medicare and a Medicare Supplemental Insurance policy. If Mary Hubberd Dahlman is unsuccessful for any reason, in obtaining such insurance, she shall obtain such other healt h insurance as might be available.
A

- 4 Michael Hubberd has health insurance through h is employer. Michael Hubberd shall provide proof of such insurance to the Trustee on an annual basis. If at any time Michael Hubberd does not have his own health insur ance coverage through his employer or otherwise, he shall obtain such other health insurance as might be available.
A

- 5. If Mary Hubberd Dahlman, for any reason, does not possess general liability insurance in a minimum amount of $1 million, she or the T rustee shall obtain such insurance as might be available.
A

- 6. If Michael Hubberd, for any reason, does not possess general liability insurance in a minimum amount of $1 million, he or the Trustee shall obtain such insurance as might be available.
The remaining portions of the probate court’s orders adding additional language to Article VI, Paragraphs A

- 3, A

- 4, A

- 5, and A

- 6 of the trust are REVERSED, and judgment is RENDERED04

- 13

- 00452

- CV
deleting this additional language from the trust. It is ORDERED that costs o f the appeal are taxed against the parties who incurred them.
SIGNED February 12, 2014.

_____________________________ Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

- 2

-
Exhibit 32.b



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 Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, Principal Financial Officer of the general partner of the general partner of the Partnership's general partner, C&M Management Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)-15 or 15(d)-15 of the Securities and 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 Partnership.



|Date:             |  |                            
|----------------- |  | ---------------------------
|November 14, 2007 |  | /s/ Marc N. Teal           
|                  |  |                            
|                  |  | Marc N. Teal               
|                  |  | Principal Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by 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 the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
### §5722. Relation to State laws

#### (a) State law applicable unless inconsistent

This subchapter does not annul, alter, or affect, or exempt any person subject to the provisions of this subchapter from complying with, the laws of any State with respect to telephone billing practices, except to the extent that those laws are inconsistent with any provision of this subchapter, and then only to the extent of the inconsistency. The Commission is authorized to determine whether such inconsistencies exist. The Commission may not determine that any State law is inconsistent with any provision of this subchapter 1 if the Commission determines that such law gives greater protection to the consumer.

#### (b) Regulatory exemptions

The Commission shall by regulation exempt from the requirements of this subchapter any class of telephone-billed purchase transactions within any State if it determines that under the law of that State that class of transactions is subject to requirements substantially similar to those imposed under this subchapter 1 or that such law gives greater protection to the consumer, and that there is adequate provision for enforcement.

(Pub. L. 102–556, title III, §302, Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 4192.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This subchapter, referred to the last time in subsecs. (a) and (b), was in the original "this chapter" and was translated as reading "this title" meaning title III of Pub. L. 102–556, to reflect the probable intent of Congress because Pub. L. 102–556 does not contain chapters.

1 See References in Text note below.
<PAGE>

                                Amendment No. 3
                                      To
                               Credit Agreement
                           Dated as of March 1, 1998
                                    Between
                         MK GOLD COMPANY, as Borrower
                                      And
                   LEUCADIA NATIONAL CORPORATION, as Lender

     This Amendment No. 3, dated as of December 31, 2000, hereby amends the
Credit Agreement entered into as of March 1, 1998, as amended pursuant to
Amendment No. 1, dated as of March 1, 2000, and Amendment No. 2, dated as of
October 17, 2000 (the "Credit Agreement"), between MK GOLD COMPANY, a Delaware
corporation ("Borrower"), and LEUCADIA NATIONAL CORPORATION, a New York
corporation ("Lender").

     Borrower and Lender agree as follows:

     1.  Amendment.  The definition of "Termination Date" set forth in Section
         ---------
1.1, "Defined Terms," of the Credit Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety
to read as follows:

         ""Termination Date" shall mean April 1, 2002, or such earlier date as
            ----------------
          may be determined in accordance with subsection 2.1(e)."

     2.  No Other Amendments. Except as expressly provided in this Amendment No.
         -------------------
3, the Credit Agreement is not amended, changed or modified, and the Credit
Agreement remains in full force and effect.

     3.  Effective Date.  The effective date of this amendment is December 31,
         --------------
2000.

     4.  Counterparts. This amendment may be executed in two or more
         ------------
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which
together shall constitute one and the same instrument.



                            [signature page follows]
<PAGE>

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Borrower and Lender have caused this Amendment No. 3 to
be duly executed as of the date first written above.

     Borrower:                     MK GOLD COMPANY,
                                   a Delaware corporation


                                   By: /s/ John Farmer
                                      --------------------------------
                                   Name: John Farmer
                                        ------------------------------
                                   Title: CFO
                                         -----------------------------


     Lender:                       LEUCADIA NATIONAL CORPORATION,
                                   a New York corporation


                                   By: /s/ Thomas E. Mara
                                      --------------------------------
                                   Name: Thomas E. Mara
                                        ------------------------------
                                   Title: EVP
                                         -----------------------------
#### § 367.9350 Account 935, Maintenance of structures and equipment.

This account must include materials used and expenses incurred in the maintenance of property owned, the cost of which is included in accounts 390 through 399 (§§ 367.3900 through 367.3990), and of property leased from others. Provide subaccounts by major classes of structures and equipment, owned and leased.