alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §332. Injunction proceedings

#### (a) Jurisdiction of courts

The district courts of the United States and the United States courts of the Territories shall have jurisdiction, for cause shown 1 to restrain violations of section 331 of this title, except paragraphs (h), (i), and (j).

#### (b) Violation of injunction

In case of violation of an injunction or restraining order issued under this section, which also constitutes a violation of this chapter, trial shall be by the court, or, upon demand of the accused, by a jury.

(June 25, 1938, ch. 675, §302, 52 Stat. 1043; Pub. L. 87–781, title I, §103(d), title II, §201(c), Oct. 10, 1962, 76 Stat. 784, 793; Pub. L. 103–80, §3(d), Aug. 13, 1993, 107 Stat. 775.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1993—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–80, §3(d)(1), struck out ", and subject to the provisions of section 17 (relating to notice to opposite party) of the Act entitled 'An Act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for other purposes', approved October 15, 1914, as amended (U.S.C., 1934 ed., title 28, sec. 381)," after "for cause shown".

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 103–80, §3(d)(2), struck out at end "Such trial shall be conducted in accordance with the practice and procedure applicable in the case of proceedings subject to the provisions of section 22 of such Act of October 15, 1914, as amended (U.S.C., 1934 ed., title 28, sec. 387)."

1962—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 87–781, §103(d), struck out "(e)," after "paragraphs".

Pub. L. 87–781, §201(c), struck out "(f)," after "paragraphs".

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

#### Effective Date of 1962 Amendment

Amendment by section 103(c) of Pub. L. 87–781 effective on first day of seventh calendar month following October 1962, see section 107 of Pub. L. 87–781, set out as a note under section 321 of this title.

Pub. L. 87–781, title II, §203, Oct. 10, 1962, 76 Stat. 793, provided that: "The amendments made by this title [amending this section and section 374 of this title and enacting provisions set out as notes under sections 321 and 374 of this title] shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 10, 1962]."

1 So in original. Probably should be followed by a comma.
### §§127, 128. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 127, R.S. §1745, which related to regulation of fees by President, was transferred to section 4219 of this title.

Section 128, R.S. §1746, which related to medium for payment of fees, was transferred to section 4220 of this title.
493 P.2d 958

#### STATE of New Mexico, Respondent, v. Jessie CLARK, Petitioner.

No. 9395.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Jan. 25, 1972.

Further ordered that the record in Court of Appeals Cause No. 772, 83 N.M. 484, 493 P.2d 969, he and the same is hereby returned to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals.
**CERTIFICATIONS**Exhibit 31.1I, S. W. Yong, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Trio-Tech International, a Californiacorporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Dated: February 09, 2007                                                 /s/ S. W. YONG   S. W. Yong, Chief Executive Officer   and President (Principal Executive Officer)
### §9603. Evaluations

The Secretary shall provide for ongoing independent evaluations by the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance of the comprehensive centers receiving assistance under this subchapter, the results of which shall be transmitted to the appropriate congressional committees and the Director of the Institute of Education Sciences. Such evaluations shall include an analysis of the services provided under this subchapter, the extent to which each of the comprehensive centers meets the objectives of its respective plan, and whether such services meet the educational needs of State educational agencies, local educational agencies, and schools in the region.

(Pub. L. 107–279, title II, §204, Nov. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 1979.)
#### Russell C. JAY, Petitioner — Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 05-72216.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.*

Decided Feb. 22, 2006.

*781Russell C. Jay, Corona Del Mar, CA, pro se.

Donald L. Korb, Acting Chief Counsel Internal Revenue Service, Janet A. Bradley, Eileen J. O’Connor, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Tax Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Russell C. Jay appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision dismissing for failure to state a claim his petition challenging the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s (“Commissioner”) notice of deficiency for tax year 2002. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7482. We review de novo a Tax Court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim, *Grimes v. Comm’r,*806 F.2d 1451, 1453 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The Tax Court properly dismissed Jay’s petition for failure to state a claim because he did not set forth a clear and concise assignment of error or any facts demonstrating error in the Commissioner’s determinations. *See*Tax Ct. R. 34(b)(4); *Grimes,*806 F.2d at 1453-54. Moreover, the Tax Court ordered Jay to file an amended petition clearly setting forth the errors alleged, and he failed to do so, and also failed to appear at the hearing on the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss.

Jay’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We deny the Commissioner’s December 6, 2005, motion requesting sanctions in the amount of $6,000 because the arguments raised in Jay’s appeal, though unavailing, are not frivolous. *See Grimes,*806 F.2d at 1454.

AFFIRMED

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### § 404.701 Introduction.

This subpart contains the Social Security Administration's basic rules about what evidence is needed when a person claims old-age, disability, dependents' and survivors' insurance benefits as described in subpart D. In addition, there are special evidence requirements for disability benefits. These are contained in subpart P. Evidence of a person's earnings under social security is described in subpart I. Evidence needed to obtain a social security number card is described in part 422. Evidence requirements for the supplemental security income program are contained in part 416.
#### § 366.4 Notification to debtor.

The notification provided by the Board to the debtor will inform the debtor how he or she may present evidence to the Board that all or part of the debt is not past due or legally enforceable.
# C_2012339EN.01000901.xml

| 7.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 339/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 339/9

---

Notice for the attention of the persons and entities to which the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 1014/2012 and implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1017/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus apply

2012/C 339/07

The following information is brought to the attention of persons and entities that appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP, and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 1014/2012 (1) and implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1017/2012 (2) concerning restrictive measures against Belarus.

1

2

The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons and entities that appear in the above-mentioned Annexes should continue to be included in the list of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus. The grounds for designations of those persons and entities appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the web-sites in Annex II to Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 3 of the Regulation).

The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG C — Coordination Unit |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C — Coordination Unit

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's Decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 307, 7.11.2012, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 307, 7.11.2012, p. 7.

2

---
### §1644e. Offsets

In determining the amount of any claim, the Commission shall deduct all amounts the claimant has received from any source on account of the same loss or losses, including any amount claimant received under section 4132(a) of title 50, for losses which occurred as a direct consequence of special measures directed against such property in any area covered under this subchapter.

(Mar. 10, 1950, ch. 54, title VI, §605, as added Pub. L. 94–542, Oct. 18, 1976, 90 Stat. 2511.)
§ 218.13 When a widow(er) annuity begins. ( a ) A widow(er) annuity begins on the later of either the date chosen by the applicant or the earliest date permitted by law.
( b ) *Earliest date permitted by law* — ( 1 ) *Full-age annuity.* The earliest date permitted by law is the latest of— ( i ) The first day of the month in which the employee dies;
( ii ) The first day of the month in which the claimant attains full retirement age; or
( iii ) The first day of the sixth month before the month in which the application is filed.
( 2 ) *Reduced-age annuity* — ( i ) *Widow(er) age 60 through age 62.* The earliest date permitted by law is the latest of— ( A ) The first day of the month in which the employee dies;
( B ) The first day of the month in which the claimant attains age 60; or
( C ) The first day of the sixth month before the month in which the application is filed.
( ii ) *Widow(er) over age 62 but under full retirement age.* The earliest date permitted by law is the latest of— ( A ) The first day of the month in which the employee dies;
( B ) The first day of the month in which the claimant attains age 62 and one month; or
( C ) The first day of the month in which the application is filed.
( 3 ) *Disability annuity.* The earliest date permitted by law is the latest of— ( i ) The first day of the month in which the employee dies;
( ii ) The first day of the month in which the claimant attains age 50;
( iii ) The first day of the twelfth month before the month in which the application is filed; or
( iv ) The first day of the sixth month after the month of disability onset.
( 4 ) *“Child in care” annuity.* The earliest date permitted by law is the latest of— ( i ) The first day of the month in which the employee dies;
( ii ) The first day of the month in which the claimant becomes eligible for a widow(er) annuity based on having a “child in care” as explained in part 216 of this chapter; or
( iii ) The first day of the sixth month before the month in which the application is filed.
[54 FR 30725, July 24, 1989, as amended at 68 FR 39010, July 1, 2003]
Exhibit 99.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Tasty Fries, Inc, a Nevada corporation
(the "Company"), on Form 10-KSB for the year ending January 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Edward C. Kelly,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to my 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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Edward C. Kelly
-----------------------------
Edward C. Kelly
Chief Executive Officer

April 29, 2004

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Tasty Fries, Inc. and will be retained by Tasty Fries, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
### **CHAPTER 19—FOREIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM**
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

OF QUINTANA MARITIME LIMITED

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

In connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2007 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stamatis V. Molaris, Chief Executive Officer of Quintana Maritime Limited (the Company), hereby certify, to my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) as applicable, 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Stamatis V. MolarisStamatis V. MolarisChief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)


Date: February 29, 2008
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7371
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KEVIN TERRELL JACKSON, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-93-45-H, CA-96-103-4-H) Submitted: April 8, 1997 Decided: May 19, 1997 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Joseph Butler, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Bruce Charles Johnson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no re versible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. United States v. Jackson , Nos. CR-93-45-H; CA-96-103-4-H (E.D.N.C. July 3, 1996). 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.

DISMISSED
### SUBCHAPTER II—INSPECTIONS
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 1,901.57

 1,901.33

 1,901.23

 1,901.24

 1,901.19

 1,900.97

 1,900.99

 1,901.38

 1,901.12

 1,900.72

 1,900.96

 1,900.81

 1,901.06

 1,900.98

 1,901.50

 1,901.17

 1,901.06

 1,901.18

 1,901.42

 1,901.47

 1,901.40

 1,901.46

 1,901.54

 1,901.17

 1,901.33

 1,900.96

 1,900.85

 1,900.97

 1,900.77

 1,901.32

 1,901.04

 14,337

 14,158

 14,083

 14,091

 14,053

 13,889

 13,904

 14,195

 14,001

 13,705

 13,882

 13,771

 13,956

 13,896

 14,285

 14,038

 13,956

 14,046

 14,225

 14,263

 14,210

 14,255

 14,315

 14,038

 14,158

 13,882

 13,801

 13,889

 13,742

 14,150

 13,941

STORAGE

+22

-179

-75

+8

-38

-164

+15

+291

-194

-296

+177

-111

+185

-60

+389

-247

-82

+90

+179

+38

-53

+45

+60

-277

+120

-276

-81

+88

-147

+408

-209

CHANGE

1,263

949

1,167

1,238

1,211

1,169

1,234

1,414

1,058

1,009

1,073

546

653

519

1,103

875

1,110

933

512

462

371

874

891

726

859

583

622

934

1,455

1,390

1,136

INFLOW

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 46

 0

 52

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

POWER

 304

 303

 301

 302

 301

 301

 299

 296

 288

 298

 311

 347

 305

 292

 174

 165

 160

 158

 157

 155

 155

 155

 155

 158

 157

 158

 171

 175

 176

 176

 175

SPILL

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 80

 68

 55

 89

 135

 83

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

 55

OUTLETS

 4

 3

 3

 4

 2

 2

 3

 0

 4

 2

 1

 1

 1

 3

 3

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 0

 1

 0

 1

 0

 1

 2

 0

 2

 0

 0

C.F.S.

 .16

 .15

 .13

 .19

 .11

 .09

 .14

 .01

 .18

 .09

 .05

 .05

 .06

 .12

 .13

 .05

 .03

 .03

 .03

 .04

 .02

 .05

 .01

 .05

 .01

 .03

 .08

 .02

 .10

 .00

 .00

INCHES

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

OCTOBER 2007 LEWISTON LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: February 7, 2008

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

C.F.S. FRANCIS CARR

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S. 

TOTALS -374 29,339 2,338 2,085 7,028 48 2.21

ACRE-FEET -374 58,194 4,637 4,136 13,940 95

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

(1) OUTLET RELEASE INCLUDES THE CONTINUOUS FISH RELEASE OF 75 C.F.S.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL POWER 4,637

TOTAL RIVER 22,713 58,476

 14,315

 35,763

RIVER

JUDGE FRANCIS CARR POWERPLANT

TOTAL RELEASE

JUDGE (2)

(1) POWERPLANT

 784

 573

 741

 768

 767

 789

 764

 811

 704

 710

 537

 119

 119

 119

 595

 699

 855

 594

 129

 152

 108

 560

 571

 572

 507

 428

 355

 580

 1,216

 873

 931

 18,030

 35,763

Table 6
#### § 402.65 Health care information.

We have some information about health care programs under titles XVIII and XIX (Medicare and Medicaid) of the Social Security Act. We follow the rules in 42 CFR part 401 in determining whether to provide any portion of it to a requester.
##### 



STOCK OPTION GRANT PROGRAM
FOR
NONEMPLOYEE DIRECTORS UNDER THE
CARDIAC SCIENCE CORPORATION
2002 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
  1. Eligibility
  2. Initial Grants
  3. Annual Grants




---



##### 



4. Option Exercise Price
  5. Manner of Option Exercise
  6. Term of Options
    7. Company Transactions
    -2-




---



##### 



8. Amendment
   9. Effective Date
  -3-




---



##### 



PROGRAM ADOPTION AND AMENDMENTS
SUMMARY PAGE
 Date of Board
    
    
    
    Section/EffectAction
    
    Action
    
    of AmendmentNovember 9, 2005
    
    Initial Program Adoption
 -4-