alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 667.100 When do Workforce Investment Act grant funds become available? ( a ) *Program year.* Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, fiscal year appropriations for programs and activities carried out under title I of WIA are available for obligation on the basis of a program year. A program year begins on July 1 in the fiscal year for which the appropriation is made and ends on June 30 of the following year.
( b ) *Youth fund availability.* Fiscal year appropriations for a program year's youth activities, authorized under chapter 4, subtitle B, title I of WIA, may be made available for obligation beginning on April 1 of the fiscal year for which the appropriation is made.
[Graphic omitted] Ahold

                                                  Press Release

                                                  Royal Ahold
                                                  Corporate Communications

                                           Date:  August 25, 2004
                           For more information:  +31 75 659 57 20

Ahold announces new U.S. Foodservice Securitization Program

Zaandam, The Netherlands, August 25, 2004 -- Ahold today announced that its U.S.
subsidiary, U.S. Foodservice, has entered into a new USD 600 million receivable
364-day securitization program with three banks. The new agreement, which was
entered into on August 24, 2004, replaces the aggregate USD 490 million variable
investment certificates commitments under the existing securitization programs
with immediate effect.

Commenting on the deal, Ahold CFO Hannu Ryopponen said, "We are happy to have
reached agreement on terms and conditions that are very much in line with market
standards and that includes improved pricing."

Ahold Corporate Communications: +31.75.659.5720

                                                  Albert Heijnweg 1, Zaandam
                                                  P.O. Box 3050, 1500 HB Zaandam
                                                  The Netherlands
                                                  Phone:  +31 (0)75 659 5720
http://www.ahold.com                              Fax:    +31 (0)75 659 8302
Exhibit 99.1

Annual Statement of
ComplianceProtective Life Secured Trust 2005-11 (the "Trust")

I, Joseph A. Lloret, a duly elected and acting officer of The Bank of New York ("Indenture Trustee"), do hereby certify on
behalf of the Indenture Trustee, that:

1.     I
have reviewed and examined the performance by the Indenture Trustee of the
collection and distribution of trust money pursuant to
Section 5.02 and, if applicable, Section 6.06 of the Indenture
pursuant to which the Trust's notes (the "Notes") were issued during the fiscal year
ending December 31, 2005 (the "Relevant
Year"); and

2.     Based
upon my review and examination described in 1 above, and except as provided in the Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm, dated March 31, 2006, prepared by the Trust's
independent registered public accounting firm in accordance with Section 10 of the Expense and Indemnity
Agreement, to the best of my knowledge, the collection of payments on the funding agreements and distribution of payments to noteholders
pursuant to Section 5.02 and, if applicable, Section 6.06 of the
Indenture was performed in a satisfactory manner in all material respects
throughout the Relevant Year.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK, as Indenture Trustee

|By: |  | /s/JOSEPH A. LLORET
      Name:  Joseph A. Lloret
      Title:    Assistant Vice President |  |  |  | 
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  |  |  | 

Date:  March 31, 2006
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350 The undersigned, John M. Fluke, Jr., the Interim Principal
Executive Officer of CellCyte Genetics Corporation, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form
10-K of CellCyte Genetics Corporation, for the year ended December 31, 2009,
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Annual Report on
Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of CellCyte Genetics Corporation. Date: April
15, 2010. /s/
John M. Fluke, Jr.__
___John M.
Fluke, Jr.Interim Principal Executive
Officer __________   Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350 The undersigned, Randy A. Lieber, the Principal Accounting Officer
of CellCyte Genetics Corporation, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
 Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of CellCyte
Genetics Corporation, for the year ended December 31, 2009, fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and that the information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-K
fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of CellCyte Genetics Corporation. Date: April
15, 2010. /s/
Randy A. Lieber___Randy A.
LieberPrincipal Accounting Officer __________
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6675

WILLIAM E. NICHOLSON-EL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; GARY W. WATERS, Sheriff, Portsmouth, VA, Respondents - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-98-482) Submitted: August 19, 1999 Decided: August 26, 1999Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William E. Nicholson-El, Petitioner Pro Se. Joan Elizabeth Evans, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: William E. Nicholson-El appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Nicholson-El v. United States Parole Comm’n , No. CA-98-482 (E.D. Va. Mar. 29, 1999). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### Florence C. Schmitt, Appellant, v. George V. Smith et al., Individually and as Trustees under the Will of George Schmitt, Deceased, Respondents.

Present—Martin, P. J., Townley, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
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

DAY ELEV

 130.63

 130.61

 130.61

 130.70

 130.67

 130.70

 130.83

 130.94

 130.92

 130.80

 130.77

 130.87

 130.78

 130.88

 130.63

 130.54

 130.65

 130.54

 130.39

 130.61

 130.88

 130.91

 130.71

 130.57

 130.45

 130.36

 130.36

 130.52

 130.57

 130.70

 648

 645

 645

 656

 652

 656

 670

 683

 680

 667

 664

 675

 665

 676

 648

 637

 650

 637

 622

 645

 676

 679

 657

 641

 628

 619

 619

 635

 641

 656

STORAGE

-4

-3

+0

+11

-4

+4

+14

+13

-3

-13

-3

+11

-10

+11

-28

-11

+13

-13

-15

+23

+31

+3

-22

-16

-13

-9

+0

+16

+6

+15

CHANGE

504

498

495

485

447

440

458

448

432

436

454

443

446

453

414

414

398

350

314

297

286

261

258

274

281

281

294

296

270

257

INFLOW

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

 34

PUTAH

 471

 465

 459

 443

 414

 403

 416

 406

 399

 408

 421

 402

 415

 412

 393

 385

 356

 322

 287

 251

 235

 224

 234

 247

 253

 251

 259

 253

 232

 215

PUTAH

 1

 1

 2

 2

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 2

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 0

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 1

 0

C.F.S.

 .35

 .33

 .49

 .45

 .42

 .28

 .41

 .30

 .33

 .39

 .25

 .29

 .45

 .25

 .41

 .33

 .32

 .39

 .25

 .12

 .20

 .30

 .19

 .22

 .25

 .27

 .25

 .17

 .16

 .14

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .12

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-SOLANO PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

SEPTEMBER 2004 RUN DATE: 10/22/2004

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +4 11,384 10,331 1,020 31 8.96 .12

ACRE-FEET +4 22,580 20,492 2,023 61

COMMENTS:

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

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

PUTAH CREEK 2,023

PUTAH SOUTH CANAL 20,492

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 .12

JULY 1, 2004 .12

 652

LAKE SOLANO DAILY OPERATIONS

SOUTH CREEK
### §290n. Appointment of members of Border Health Commission

Not later than 30 days after November 29, 1999, the President shall appoint the United States members of the United States-Mexico Border Health Commission, and shall attempt to conclude an agreement with Mexico providing for the establishment of such Commission.

(Pub. L. 103–400, §2, as added Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, §1000(a)(4) [title V, §516(1)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1535, 1501A–276.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 290n, Pub. L. 103–400, §2, Oct. 22, 1994, 108 Stat. 4169, related to the establishment of the Border Health Commission, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, §1000(a)(4) [title V, §516(1)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1535, 1501A–276.

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

#### Short Title

Pub. L. 103–400, §1, Oct. 22, 1994, 108 Stat. 4169, provided that: "This Act [enacting this subchapter] may be cited as the 'United States-Mexico Border Health Commission Act'."
Exhibit
      31.2





CERTIFICATION




I,
      Mary
      Desmond, certify that:




1.
      I have
      reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended March 31, 2006,
      of
      Techprecision Corporation;




2.
      Based
      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
      fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
      in
      light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
      with respect to the period covered by this report;




3.
      Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
      condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
      for, the periods presented in this report;




4.
      The
      registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
      maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
      Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:




a)
      designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that
      material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
      subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly
      during the period in which this report is being prepared;




b)
      evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
      procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness
      of the disclosure controls and procedures, 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
      financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter
      that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
      the
      registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and




5.
      The
      registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
      recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
      registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of
      directors:




a)
      all
      significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
      of
      internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
      adversely affect the registrant’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 a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
      reporting.


Dated:
                June 13, 2007
            
            /s/
              Mary DesmondMary
              DesmondChief
                Financial Officer
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





In connection with the Quarterly Report of AE Biofuels, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Eric A. McAfee, 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 and 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:
ERIC A. MCAFEEEric A. McAfeeChief Executive Officer
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Petition for Exemption/Rulemaking
#### Sukhvinderjit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-74058.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.*

Decided Feb. 22, 2006.

*806George T. Heridis, Esq., Zeena Batliwalla, Rai & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Audrey B. Hemesath, San Francisco, CA, USSAC-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, Kristi C. Kapetan, USF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Sukhvinderjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s determination that Singh failed to file a timely asylum application. *See Ramadan v. Gonzales,*427 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir .2005).

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review the denial of withholding of removal and CAT protection. We review the IJ’s decision for substantial evidence, *Singh v. Ashcroft,*367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir.2004), and deny the petition for review on these claims.

The IJ’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence, as Singh failed to explain adequately discrepancies between his testimony and the written documents in the record. *See id.*In addition, Singh has failed to challenge the IJ’s findings regarding his demeanor, specifically his hesitation to answer unexpected questions or when asked for details not contained in his asylum application. *See Mendoza Manimbao v. Ashcroft,*329 F.3d 655, 662 (9th Cir.2003).

In the absence of credible evidence, Singh has failed to show eligibility for withholding of removal. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Because Singh’s claims under the CAT are based on the same facts that the IJ found to be not credible, and Singh points to no other evidence the IJ should have considered, he has failed to establish eligibility for relief under the CAT. *See id.*at 1157.

DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part

**

 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.
#### Stanley R. SILER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-5170.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 15, 2006.

*424Before MAYER, SCHALL, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

DECISION

PER CURIAM.

Stanley R. Siler appeals from the September 1, 2005 order of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. *Siler v. United States,*No. 05-926C, slip op. (Fed.Cl. Sept. 1, 2005). We *affirm.*

DISCUSSION

On August 24, 2005, Mr. Siler filed a *pro se*complaint in the Court of Federal Claims against the United States, generally alleging copyright infringement and breach of contract. The jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims over copyright infringement extends only to claims against the United States. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1498(b) (2000). Mr. Siler’s complaint alleged:

> The Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Marion allows defendants in the case below to continue to infringe copyright property ... [and] deliberately dismisses Copyright Suit ... STANLEY R. SILVER vs. Dennis Vavrosky, et al. The Circuit Court ... refuses to enforce copyright infringement actions.... The Circuit Court ... is unjust and unfair.

Because Mr. Siler’s complaint did not allege that the United States infringed a copyright owned by him, the Court of Federal Claims was required to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

With respect to the contract claim, Mr. Siler’s complaint alleged that he “has a written agreement with the United States Court of Federal Claim[s].” However, we understand Mr. Siler to have been claiming that he has a contract with the United States. In support of his claim, Mr. Siler submitted a notarized document prepared by him and signed only by him, although it declares that it binds the United States. Based on a submitted Certificate of Recordation, the document appears to have been registered in the Copyright Office. Because the document is not a contract or agreement at all, given that there is no indication of acceptance, we conclude that the Court of Federal Claims properly dismissed Mr. Siler’s contract action for failure to state a claim. Accord*425ingly, the decision by the Court of Federal claims to dismiss Mr. Siler’s complaint is affirmed.
#### Chris P. BAUER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 05-3580.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 24, 2006.

Mark R. Naegel, Kondritzer, Gold, Frank & Crowley, Cincinnati, OH, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Henry S. Kramzyk, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before COLE, CLAY, GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Chris P. Bauer appeals the district court’s order remanding his Social Security benefits claim to the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The district court found that “remand is necessary to perform a proper evaluation so as to determine whether plaintiffs impairments [meet] or equal the Listing.” Furthermore, the court held that even if Bauer does not meet the relevant Listing at step three, the testimony of the vocational expert must be compared to the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, in accordance with Social Security Regulation 00-4p. We agree, and accordingly affirm the district court’s order on that court’s reasoning.

On remand, the ALJ should proceed in accordance with the opinion of the district court, and should solicit and entertain medical evidence as to whether Bauer meets Listing 1.04A, effective February 19, 2002. Bauer’s claim should not be subject to denial merely because, in the ALJ’s words, “some of the required findings have occasionally been reported, but they were not consistently present.” Listing 1.04A has, among other things, dropped the requirement of the previous Listing (1.05C) that symptoms persists “for at least 3 months despite prescribed therapy.”

The opinion of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
§ 683.430 How does the Secretary resolve investigative and monitoring findings? ( a ) As a result of an investigation, on-site visit, other monitoring, or an audit (*i.e.,* Single Audit, OIG Audit, GAO Audit, or other audit), the Secretary will notify the direct recipient of the Federal award of the findings of the investigation and give the direct recipient a period of time (not more than 60 days) to comment and to take appropriate corrective actions. ( 1 ) *Adequate resolution.* The Grant Officer in conjunction with the Federal project officer, reviews the complete file of the monitoring review, monitoring report, or final audit report and the recipient's response and actions under paragraph (a) of this section. The Grant Officer's review takes into account the sanction provisions of secs. 184(b)-(c) of WIOA. If the Grant Officer agrees with the recipient's handling of the situation, the Grant Officer so notifies the recipient. This notification constitutes final agency action.
( 2 ) *Inadequate resolution.* If the direct recipient's response and actions to resolve the findings are found to be inadequate, the Grant Officer will begin the Grant Officer resolution process under § 683.440.
( b ) Audits from 2 CFR part 200 will be resolved through the Grant Officer resolution process, as discussed in § 683.440.
#### § 686.980 How does Job Corps resolve disputes between the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Department of Agriculture regarding the operation of Job Corps centers?

Disputes between the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Department of Agriculture regarding operating a center will be handled according to the interagency agreement between the two agencies.