alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §10223. Sanctions and policy coordination for Burma

#### (a) In general

The head of the Office of Sanctions Coordination in the Department of State should develop a comprehensive strategy for the implementation of the full range of United States diplomatic capabilities to implement Burma-related sanctions in order to promote human rights and the restoration of civilian government in Burma.

#### (b) Matters to be included

The strategy described in subsection (a) should include plans and steps to—

(1) coordinate the sanctions policies of the United States with relevant bureaus and offices in the Department of State and other relevant United States Government agencies;

(2) conduct relevant research and vetting of entities and individuals that may be subject to sanctions and coordinate with other United States Government agencies and international financial intelligence units to assist in efforts to enforce anti-money laundering and anti-corruption laws and regulations;

(3) promote a comprehensive international effort to impose and enforce multilateral sanctions with respect to Burma;

(4) support interagency United States Government efforts, including efforts of the United States Chief of Mission to Burma, the United States Ambassador to ASEAN, and the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations, relating to—

(A) identifying opportunities to exert pressure on the governments of the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation to support multilateral action against the Burmese military; and

(B) working with like-minded partners to impose a coordinated arms embargo on the Burmese military and targeted sanctions on the economic interests of the Burmese military, including through the introduction and adoption of a United Nations Security Council resolution; and

(5) provide timely input for reporting on the impacts of the implementation of sanctions on the Burmese military and the people of Burma.

(Pub. L. 117–263, div. E, title LV, §5572, Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 3366.)
Management Themes Applied to Idaho Roadless Areas

Wild Land Recreation

Primitive

Backcountry/Restoration

General Forest , Rangeland and Grassland

Special Areas of Historic or Tribal Significance

Forest Plan Special Areas

Wilderness

National Forest System Lands

(Other ownership is not displayed)

Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness

Sawtooth Wilderness

Peace Rock

Needles

Smoky Mountains

Lime Creek

Red Mountain

Danskin

Sheep Creek

Deadwood

Caton Lake

Rainbow

Snowbank

House Mountain

Ten Mile/Black Warrior

Steel Mountain

Bernard

Cow Creek

Elk Creek

Mt Heinen

Hanson Lakes

Burnt Log

Grand Mountain

Meadow Creek

Breadwinner

Lost Man Creek

Grimes Pass

Bear Wallow

Horse Heaven

Wilson Peak

Whiskey

Blue Bunch

Whiskey Jack

Black Lake

Cathedral Rocks

Hawley Mountain

Stony Meadows

Bald Mountain

Reeves Creek

Poison Creek

Whitehawk Mountain

Nameless Creek

TennesseePoker Meadows

§ ̈¦84

§ ̈¦184

§ ̈¦184

£¤20

£¤95

£¤20

¬«75

¬«21

¬«55

¬«46

¬«52

Ola

Pine

Boise

Pearl

Sweet

Banks

Lardo

Corral

Owyhee

Barber

Lowman

Crouch

McCall

Cobalt

Ketchum

Atlanta

Clayton

Stanley

Sunbeam

Orchard

Prairie

Montour

Gardena

Cascade

Meadows

Mayfield

Donnelly

Hill City

Fairfield

Lake Fork

Idaho City

Placerville

Featherville

Smiths Ferry

Garden Valley

Horseshoe Bend

Boise Idaho Roadless Rule Management Themes

9 4.5 0 9 I Miles

The USDA Forest Service uses the most current and complete

data available. GIS Data and product accuracy may vary.

Using GIS products for puposes other than those for which they

were intended may yield inaccurate or misleading results.

The USDA Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update,

modify, or replace GIS products without notification.
EXHIBIT 32



In connection with the annual report of Holloman Energy Corporation, (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) Mark Stevenson, the Principal Executive Officer of the Company and Robert Wesolek, the Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 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 operation of the company.





|                   |     |                                            
|------------------ | --- | -------------------------------------------
|                   |     |                                            
|September 16, 2009 | By: | /s/Mark Stevenson                          
|                   |     | Mark Stevenson, Principal Executive Officer
|                   |     |                                            
|                   |     |                                            
|                   |     |                                            
|                   |     |                                            
|September 16, 2009 | By: | /s/Robert Wesolek                          
|                   |     | Robert Wesolek, Principal Financial Officer
|                   |     |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE  SHEET AT MARCH 31,  2000  (UNAUDITED)  AND THE  CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       2,159,691
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,586,463
<ALLOWANCES>                                   524,495
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,671,588
<PP&E>                                       2,636,609
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,003,541
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,525,859
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          596,919
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           90,191
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,838,749
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,525,859
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,725,154
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,414,618
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               227,203
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,127
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,438,609
<INCOME-TAX>                                   567,712
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            870,897
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   870,897
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .10


</TABLE>
#### § 261.9 Finality of findings when later claim is filed on same earnings record.

If two claims for benefits are filed on the same record of compensation, findings of fact made in a decision in the first claim may be revised in determining or deciding the second claim, even though the time limit for revising the findings made in the first claim has passed. However, a finding in connection with a claim that a person was fully or currently insured at the time of filing an application, at the time of death, or any other pertinent time, may be revised only under the conditions stated in § 261.2 of this part.
### §262p–4g. Directives regarding government-owned enterprises in countries receiving IADB loans

#### (a) Finding

The Congress finds that a principal focus of United States Government policy in the multilateral development banks has been and should be to foster greater development of the private sector in member borrowing countries of such banks.

#### (b) Technical assistance to transform government-owned enterprises into privately owned enterprises

In order to assist and strengthen the advancement of ongoing efforts to have the Inter-American Development Bank play a key role in building a viable private sector in member borrowing countries of such bank, and to further assist such bank in its determination to facilitate the transfer of government-owned enterprises in such countries to private ownership, the Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United States Executive Director of such bank to vigorously encourage the provision of technical assistance to such countries to transform enterprises owned, in whole or in part, by the governments of such countries into privately owned, self-sufficient enterprises. Such technical assistance may involve the valuation of the assets of such government-owned enterprises, the assessment of tender offers, and the creation or strengthening of market-based mechanisms to facilitate such a transfer of ownership.

(Pub. L. 95–118, title XVI, §1612, as added Pub. L. 101–240, title II, §206, Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2499.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 1612 of Pub. L. 95–118 was renumbered section 1622 and is classified to section 262p–5 of this title.

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

#### Definitions

The definitions in section 262p–5 of this title apply to this section.
**Exhibit 13.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION BY 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**

 

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Sundance Energy Australia Limited (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 (the “Report”), I, Cathy L. Anderson, 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:

 

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.

 
| Date:  April 28,   2017 |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
|                                   |   |
|                                   |   |
| /s/ Cathy   L Anderson                 |   |
| Cathy L.   Anderson                    |   |
| Chief   Financial Officer              |   |
| (Principal   Financial Officer)        |   |

 

----
**EXHIBIT12(c)**

 

#### **PACCAR and Subsidiaries**

#### ** **

**COMPUTATIONOF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES**

 

**PURSUANT TO SEC REPORTINGREQUIREMENTS**

(Millions ofDollars)

 
| ** **                                         | ** ** | Three Months Ended | ** ** |
|----------------------------------------------------|------------|------------------------------|------------|
| ** **                                         | ** ** | March 31                | ** ** |
| ** **                                         |       | **2008**                     |       | 2007 |   |
|                                               |       |                         |       |   |   |
| FIXED CHARGES                                      |       |                         |       |   |   |
| Interest expense  - PACCAR and Subsidiaries (1)    | ** ** | **$**                        | **98.2**   |   | $ | 89.3 |   |
| Portion of  rentals deemed interest                | ** ** | **4.4**                      |       | 4.3 |   |
|                                               |       |                         |       |   |   |
| TOTAL FIXED  CHARGES                               | ** ** | **$**                        | **102.6**  |   | $ | 93.6 |   |
|                                               |       |                         |       |   |   |
| EARNINGS                                           |       |                         |       |   |   |
| Income before  taxes - PACCAR and Subsidiaries (2) | ** ** | **$**                        | **423.6**  |   | $ | 537.7 |   |
| FIXED CHARGES                                      | ** ** | **102.6**                    |       | 93.6 |   |
|                                               |       |                         |       |   |   |
| EARNINGS AS  DEFINED                               | ** ** | **$**                        | **526.2**  |   | $ | 631.3 |   |
|                                               |       |                         |       |   |   |
| RATIO OF  EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                | ** ** | **5.13X**                    |       | 6.74X |   |

 

(1)  Exclusive of interest, ifany, paid to PACCAR.

 

(2)  Includes before tax earningsof wholly owned subsidiaries.

 

----
#### Ke Wen LI, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES,1 United States Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-1873-AG.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Feb. 21, 2006.

Ke Wen Li, Brooklyn, New York., for Petitioner.

Glenn T. Suddaby, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, William C. Pericak, Thomas Capezza, Assistant United States Attorneys, Robert P. Storch, Senior Litigation Counsel, Albany, NY, for Respondent.

PRESENT: Hon. JOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN, Hon. SONIA SOTOMAYOR, and Hon. ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.

1

. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales is automatically substituted for former Attorney General John Ashcroft as a respondent in this case.

SUMMARY ORDER

Ke Wen Li petitions for review of the BIA’s April 6, 2004 decision affirming an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of Li’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case.

This Court reviews the agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, under the substantial evidence standard, overturning them only if any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); *Zhou Yun Zhang v. INS,*386 F.3d 66, 73 (2d Cir.2004).

The IJ determined, and the BIA agreed, that Li’s initial airport statement was inconsistent with his asylum application and testimony because he did not mention his wife’s alleged forced abortion at the air*459port interview as the reason for his leaving China. The record here reveals that the airport statement comported with the factors used to evaluate reliability set forth in *Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft,*357 F.3d 169, 179 (2d Cir.2004) (the agency may rely on airport interview statements, if the record of the interview indicates that it presents “an accurate record of the alien’s statements, and that it was not conducted under coercive or misleading circumstances”). Li did not deny understanding the question asked and the BIA was not required to accept his explanation for his omission at the airport interview. Because the BIA did not err in concluding that this inconsistency was fundamental to Li’s claim, the adverse credibility determination was proper. *See Zhou Yi Ni v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 172, 174 (2d Cir.2005) *(per*curiam) (noting that where a credibility determination is based on specific examples of contradictory evidence that undermine the crux of the claim, the adverse credibility determination should be upheld).

Li fails to mention or argue his claim for CAT relief. Therefore, his petition for review of the BIA’s finding as to this claim is waived. *See Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales,*426 F.3d 540, 541 n. 1 (2d Cir.2005).

For the foregoing reasons, Li’s petition for review is DENIED. The pending motion for a stay is DENIED as moot.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 414 

To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act to repeal certain additional disclosure requirements, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 20, 2015 

Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan (for himself, Mr. GARRETT, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. 

GUINTA, Mr. STIVERS, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. DUFFY, Mr. MCHENRY, 

Mrs. WAGNER, Mr. MESSER, Mr. HILL, Mr. BARR, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, 

Mr. WILLIAMS, and Mr. MULVANEY) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to repeal certain additional disclosure requirements, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Burdensome Data Col5 lection Relief Act’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 414 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE REQUIRE2 MENTS. 

3 Section 953(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Re4 form and Consumer Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 781 note) 

5 is hereby repealed and any regulations issued pursuant to 

6 such subsection shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
§ 1001.110 Role of the Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and Training (ASVET). ( a ) As the principal veterans' advisor to the Secretary of Labor, the ASVET shall formulate, promulgate, and administer policies, regulations, grant procedures, grant agreements and administrative guidelines and administer them through the Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) so as to provide eligible veterans and eligible persons the maximum of employment and training opportunities, with priority given to the needs of disabled veterans and veterans of the Vietnam era, through existing programs, coordination, and merger of programs and implementation of new programs.
( b ) ASVET shall oversee activities carried out by State agencies pursuant to 38 U.S.C., chapters 41 and 42.
( c ) ASVET shall ensure that appropriate records and reports are maintained by State agencies within their management information systems to fulfill their obligations under this subpart.
[49 FR 12919, Mar. 30, 1984. Redesignated at 54 FR 39353, Sept. 26, 1989]
(No. 4162

#### Charles H. Jetter, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed March*7, *1950.*

R. W. Harris, Attorney for Claimant.

Ivan A. Elliott, Attorney General; C. Arthur Nebel, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

*152Delaney, J.

This claimaiLt seeks an award for contracting active tuberculosis under the Workmen’s Occupational Diseases Act.

The record consists of the complaint, departmental report, transcript of testimony, abstract of evidence, claimant’s X-rays and claimant’s waiver of brief.

Claimant was employed by the Department of Public Welfare of the State of Illinois in the capacity of a guard at the Illinois Security Hospital at Menard, Illinois, for the period from February 16, 1944, to July 25, 1948, when his services were terminated.

The record shows that, at the time of his employment he was examined by the institution physician, which he satisfactorily passed, and that he was X-rayed at a later date. Claimant testified that he worked in the tuberculosis ward at the Security Hospital from December, 1945, to May, 1947. Dr. Alonzo N. Baker, who testified as an examining physician, stated that he took X-rays and that such picture showed two spots on the upper lobe of claimant’s left lung which was questionably active but that a sputum examination was not made. The doctor further stated that he could not establish absolutely from the X-ray whether or not the condition was active. The respondent’s Exhibit A, which includes a departmental report made by Dr. Morris Greenberg, Tuberculosis Central Physician, Department of Public Welfare, shows several sputum tests made of claimant and all of these tests were negative as to tubercle bacilli. The respondent’s report by Dr. Morris Greenberg fur*153tlier showed that claimant was examined April 20, 1944, which examination showed from the X-ray film taken at that time that a density in the left lung of the claimant existed at a time prior to his employment by the respondent.

The evidence fails to show that claimant contracted an occupational disease while employed by respondent. The claimant, having failed to establish by the evidence that he is entitled to an award, his complaint must be dismissed. .

Award denied.

Gray Brewer, Court Reporter, has filed a bill for reporter services in this case in the sum of $120.33. The bill appears reasonable for the services rendered and is hereby allowed.

An award is hereby rendered in favor of Gray Brewer in the sum of $120.33.