alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 50.32 May the deadlines in this part be extended?

Yes. Upon a finding of good cause, the Secretary may extend any deadline in § 50.30 or § 50.31 by a maximum of 90 days and post on the Department Web site the length of and the reasons for the extension: *Provided,* that any request for an extension of time is in writing and sets forth good cause.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4831 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4831

   To amend the Federal Reserve Act to limit the ability of Federal 
         Reserve banks to issue central bank digital currency.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 13, 2022

  Mr. Lee (for himself and Mr. Braun) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Federal Reserve Act to limit the ability of Federal 
         Reserve banks to issue central bank digital currency.

    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 ``No Central Bank Digital Currency 
Act'' or the ``No CBDC Act''.

SEC. 2. CENTRAL BANK DIGITAL CURRENCY.

    Section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act is amended by adding after 
the 14th undesignated paragraph (12 U.S.C. 347d) the following:
            ``No Federal reserve bank, the Board, the Secretary of the 
        Treasury, any other agency, or any entity directed to act on 
        behalf of the Federal reserve bank, the Board, the Secretary, 
        or other agency, may mint or issue a central bank digital 
        currency directly to an individual (including central bank 
        digital currency issued to an individual through a custodial 
        intermediary) or a digital currency intermediary, offer related 
        products or services directly to an individual, or maintain an 
        account on behalf of an individual (including an account in a 
        specially designated account at a digital currency intermediary 
        or supervised commercial bank). No Federal reserve bank may 
        hold digital currencies minted or issued by the United States 
        Government as assets or liabilities on their balance sheets or 
        use such digital currencies as part of fulfilling the 
        requirements under section 2A.''.
                                 <all>
```
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-3157

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Tommie Lee Thompson

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport

____________

 Submitted: May 3, 2018

Filed: May 7, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Tommie Lee Thompson appeals the sentence the district court imposed upon 1

him after it revoked his supervised release. Thompson’s counsel has moved for leave

The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the

1

Southern District of Iowa.
to withdraw and has filed a brief challenging the substantive reasonableness of

Thompson’s sentence.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the sentence was not substantively

unreasonable. See United States v. Merrival, 521 F.3d 889, 890 (8th Cir. 2008)

(reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a post-revocation sentence under an

abuse-of-discretion standard); see also United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824

(8th Cir. 2009) (applying a presumption of substantive reasonableness to a postrevocation, within-Guidelines-range prison sentence). Accordingly, we affirm the

judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
#### Dunkirk Trust Company, as Administrator of the Estate of Lucinda Helwig, Deceased, Respondent, v. Old Vienna, Inc., Appellant.

Present—Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling and Harris, JJ.
#### § 6304.20 Other uses addressed in special provisions of the Wilderness Act.
### PART I—ESTABLISHMENT

Sec.
5401.
Qualifying documents.
5402.
Definitions.
5403.
Cross references.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior part I consisted of sections 5401 to 5403 of this title, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 85–859, title II, §201, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1313.
# Europos Sąjungos C 278A/2005

| | ISSN 1725-521X |
| --- | --- |
| Europos Sąjungos
  oficialusis leidinys | C 278A |
| | |
| Leidimas lietuvių kalba | Informacija ir prane_imai | 48 tomas2005m. lapkričio 11d. |

ISSN 1725-521X

Europos Sąjungos

oficialusis leidinys

C 278A

Leidimas lietuvių kalba

Informacija ir prane_imai

48 tomas2005m. lapkričio 11d.

---

| Prane_imo Nr. | Turinys | Puslapis |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Pranešimai |
| | Taryba |
| 2005/C 278A/1 | Pranešimas apie laisvas padėjėjo pareigybes — Nr. Taryba/B/025 | 1 |
| | Europos centrinis bankas |
| 2005/C 278A/2 | Laisva darbo vieta teisinių paslaugų generaliniame direktorate – Teisinių paslaugų generalinio direktoriaus pavaduotojas | 2 |

Prane_imo Nr.

Turinys

Puslapis

III   Pranešimai

Taryba

2005/C 278A/1

Pranešimas apie laisvas padėjėjo pareigybes — Nr. Taryba/B/025

1

Europos centrinis bankas

2005/C 278A/2

Laisva darbo vieta teisinių paslaugų generaliniame direktorate – Teisinių paslaugų generalinio direktoriaus pavaduotojas

2

| LT | |
| --- | --- |

LT

---

III Pranešimai

Taryba

| 11.11.2005 | LT | Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys | CA 278/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2005

LT

Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys

CA 278/1

---

PRANEŠIMAS APIE LAISVAS PADĖJĖJO PAREIGYBES

Nr. Taryba/B/025

(2005/C 278 A/01)

Europos Sąjungos Tarybos generalinis sekretoriatas rengiasi priimti darbuotojus į laisvas laikinas

| — | dvi B* kategorijos 3 lygio (AST 3) pareigybes – Taryba/B/025 |
| --- | --- |

—

dvi B* kategorijos 3 lygio (AST 3) pareigybes – Taryba/B/025

Saugumo tarnybos Misijų apsaugos departamente.

Daugiau informacijos galima gauti Atrankos ir įdarbinimo departamente šiuo elektroninio pašto adresu:

service.recrutement@consilium.eu.int

arba jo interneto svetainėje:

http://ue.eu.int/concours

Galutinis paraiškų pateikimo terminas – 2005 m. gruodžio 2 d., paliudytas pašto antspaudu.

---

Europos centrinis bankas

| 11.11.2005 | LT | Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys | CA 278/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2005

LT

Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys

CA 278/2

---

LAISVA DARBO VIETA TEISINIŲ PASLAUGŲ GENERALINIAME DIREKTORATE

Teisinių paslaugų generalinio direktoriaus pavaduotojas

(2005/C 278 A/02)

Europos centrinis bankas priima paraiškas Teisinių paslaugų generalinio direktoriaus pavaduotojo pareigoms užimti. Daugiau informacijos apie darbo pobūdį ir pareigas bei apie tai, kaip teikti paraiškas, galima rasti ECB interneto svetainėje adresu www.ecb.int (Ieškantiems darbo).

---
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 60608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22869]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Integrated Resource Contracts FS-2400-13 and FS-2400-13T

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service published, on October 5, 2004 (69 FR 
59577), a notice implementing interim Integrated Resource Contracts, 
FS-2400-13, for use when timber products are measured after harvest, 
and FS-2400-13T, for use when timber products are measured before 
harvest. The statement that the interim contracts became effective 
immediately upon publication of the notice in the Federal Register was 
inadvertently omitted.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Fitzgerald, Forest Management 
Staff, (202) 205-1753, or Lathrop Smith, Forest Management Staff, (202) 
205-0858.
    Correction: In the Federal Register issue of October 5, 2004, in FR 
04-22338, page 59577, in the first column, the DATES section is 
corrected to read as follows:

DATES: Effective Date: The interim Integrated Resource Contracts FS-
2400-13 and FS-2400-13T are effective on October 5, 2004.
    Comment Date: Comments must be received in writing on or before 
November 4, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments by mail to USDA Forest Service, 
Director Forest Management, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Mail Stop 
1103, Washington, DC 20250-0003; via e-mail to: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#deb7b0aabbb9acbfaabbbaacbbadb1abacbdbbbdb1b0aaacbfbdaaad9eb8adf0b8bbbaf0abad"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="afc6c1dbcac8ddcedbcacbddcadcc0daddcccaccc0c1dbddceccdbdcefc9dc81c9cacb81dadc">[email protected]</span></a>; or via facsimile to (202) 205-
1045. Comments may also be submitted via the World Wide Web Internet 
Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov. All comments including names 
and addresses when provided are placed in the record and are available 
for public inspection and copying. The interim Integrated Resource 
Contracts are available for public review on the Forest Service World 
Wide Web/Internet site at: http://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/projects/stewardship/contracts. Alternatively, these can be viewed in 
the office of the Director of Forest Management, Third Floor, Northwest 
Wing, Yates Building, 201 14th Street, SW., Washington, DC. Visitors 
are encouraged to call ahead to (202) 205-0893 to facilitate entry into 
the building.

    Dated: October 5, 2004.
Frederick Norbury,
Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
[FR Doc. 04-22869 Filed 10-8-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
12/07/2011 16.08 FAX	7342144050 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY


NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY


2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD


ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105-2498

OFFICE OF


AIR AND RADIATION 

Jack N. Gerard 

President and Chief Executive Oflcer 

American Petroleum Institute 

1220 L Street. NW 

Washington. DC 20005 

Thank YOU for your letter of November 11, 2011 to Administrator Jackson, which expressed 

your concerns with the recommendation by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) to 

cap nationwide retail gasoline sulfur levels at 10 parts per million. Your letter also included an 

attachment with specific comments on AAM's October 6, 2011 letter to Administrator Jackson 

and AAM's white paper entitled "Why EPA Tier 3 Market Gasoline Sulfur Limits Need to be 

Significantly Lower, Especially for MY 20 17+ Vehicles." 

Thank you for sharing your views in such a systematic and substantive manner. As you know, 

the Environmental Protection Agency is currently developing a proposal designed to reduce air 

pollution from passenger cars and trucks by establishing new "Tier 3" motor vehicle and fuel 

standards, We will consider your concerns as we evaluate the need for more stringent gasoline 

sulfur control in the development of the Tier 3 proposal, as we will with all stakeholder input. 

Again, thank you for your letter. We look forward to your comments on the Tier 3 proposal, in 

which we will provide detail on the standards we are considering and the supporting scientific 

justification. If you have further questions or concerns, please contact Paul Machide at 734-2l4 

4264.

Chester J. France, Direct 

Assessment and Standards Division 

Iriemet Address (URL) S http:/1www.epa.ov


RscyeIsIFIscycIibI. • PrIneQ with VSQStSbIu OIl D..ed ii,j;on 100% PoItoorILbmer. Pruceae Chlorine Frn RecycI Papar
Exhibit 32

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 E Med Future, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending September 30, 2008 (the Report) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, the undersigned, being the Chief Financial Officer and Interim President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certifies, 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 § 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/ Donald Sullivan                  
|DONALD SULLIVAN                      
|CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND INTERIM  
|PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Date: November 19, 2008
#### § 4.200 How to use this subpart.

(a) The following table is a guide to the relevant contents of this subpart by subject matter.

| For provisions relating to . . . | Consult . . . |
| --- | --- |
| (1) Appeals to the Board of Indian Appeals generally | §§ 4.310 through 4.318. |
| (2) Appeals to the Board of Indian Appeals from decisions of the Probate Hearings Division in Indian probate matters | §§ 4.201 and 4.320 through 4.326. |
| (3) Appeals to the Board of Indian Appeals from actions or decisions of BIA | §§ 4.201 and 4.330 through 4.340. |
| (4) Review by the Board of Indian Appeals of other matters referred to it by the Secretary, Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs, or Director-Office of Hearings and Appeals | §§ 4.201 and 4.330 through 4.340. |
| (5) Determinations under the White Earth Reservation Land Settlement Act of 1985 | §§ 4.350 through 4.357. |

(b) Except as limited by the provisions of this part, the regulations in subparts A and B of this part apply to these proceedings.

[73 FR 67287, Nov. 13, 2008]
NUMBER 13-19-00370-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

TERESA A. JOHNSON, Appellant,

V.

SUNTRUST BANK D/B/A LIGHTSTREAM, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 370th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides

Appellant Teresa A. Johnson, proceeding pro se, attempted to perfect an appeal 

from trial court cause number C-2122-19-G in the 370th District Court of Hidalgo County, 

Texas. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Generally, appellate courts have jurisdiction only over appeals from final 

judgments. See City of Watauga v. Gordon, 434 S.W.3d 586, 588 (Tex. 2014); Lehmann 
2

v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Further, appellate courts have 

jurisdiction to consider appeals of interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly provides 

for such an appeal. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (Tex. 

2007); see City of Watauga, 434 S.W.3d at 588.

Appellant’s notice of appeal states that she wishes to appeal “the Citation served 

on July 13, 2019.” On August 2, 2019, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it 

appeared that there was no final, appealable order so that steps could be taken to correct 

this defect, if it could be done. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 42.3(a). Appellant was advised 

that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten days from 

the date of receipt of this notice. Appellant did not correct the defect or otherwise 

respond to this Court’s notice. 

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s failure to 

correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See 

id. R. 37.1, 42.3(a),(c). 

GINA M. BENAVIDES,

Justice

Delivered and filed the

12th day of September, 2019.
### §687. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 85–794, §1, Aug. 28, 1958, 72 Stat. 958, which authorized a $100 payment to each member of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians of Minnesota alive on Aug. 28, 1958, from proceeds of the sale of timber and lumber within the Red Lake Reservation, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
AMERICAN AIRLINES 

January 11, 2010 

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS: 

Dorothy Beard 

Chief, Docket Branch 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

 

 Re: Joint Applicants’ Confidential Answer to DOJ’s 

Comments, American/British Airways/Iberia/ 

Finnair/Royal Jordanian Antitrust Immunity, 

DOT-OST-2008-0252 

Dear Ms. Beard: 

 The Joint Applicants hereby submit the confidential version 

of their January 11, 2010 Answer to DOJ’s Comments. We request 

confidential treatment of this document in accordance with the Joint 

Applicants’ Rule 12 motion of August 14, 2008, which we incorporate 

herein by reference. 

 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 

CARL B. NELSON, JR. PAUL C. JASINSKI 

Associate General Counsel General Counsel, Americas 

R. BRUCE WARK JAMES B. BLANEY 

Associate General Counsel Senior Counsel, Americas 

JEFFREY A. OGAR British Airways plc 

Senior Attorney 

American Airlines, Inc. DARYL A. LIBOW 

 Sullivan & Cromwell LLP 

ROGER W. FONES DON H. HAINBACH 

Morrison & Foerster LLP Garafalo Goerlich Hainbach PC 

ANDREW B. STEINBERG Attorneys for British Airways 

Jones Day 

Attorneys for American Airlines 
 

WILLIAM KARAS SAMI SARELIUS 

CAROL GOSAIN Vice President & General Counsel 

Steptoe & Johnson LLP Finnair Oyj 

Attorneys for Iberia 

 

 

MICHAEL J. HOLLAND 

Condon & Forsyth LLP 

Attorneys for Royal Jordanian 

Attachment 

cc: Service list
#### HOECK, Respondent, v. VAN CAMP, Commissioner of Insurance, Appellant.

(205 N. W. 654.)

(File No. 5619.

Opinion filed October 28, 1925.)

Insurance — Start© Hail Insurance — Hail Insurance Daw Held Not to Operate Automatically.

Hail insurance law of South Dakota does not operate automatically to insure crops on land that is neither listed by assessor nor reported to county auditor by owner.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hughes County; Hon. John F. I-Iugt-iES, Judge.

Mandamus by PI. G. Hoeck against *W.*N. ACan Camp, as Commissioner of Insurance and as Commissioner of Hail Insurance of the State of South Dakota. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. RcVfcised and remanded, with instructions.

*Sutherland, Payne & Linstad,*of Pierre,- for Respondent.

*Buell P. Jones,*Attorney General, and *Benj. D. Mintener,*Assistant Attorney General, for Appellant.

Appellant cited: JBossen v. Alsness, Ins. Commissioner, 182 N.-W. 1013; Brown v. Nelson, et al, 197 N. W. 223.

MORIARTY, C.

The commissioner of insurance takes this appeal from a judgment of the trial court granting to respondent a peremptory writ of mandamus directing appellant, as such commissioner, to allow the respondent’s claim for hail damage's to his *629crop of flax. The local assessor did not list the land as cultivated land, nor did respondent report to the county auditor that the land was in crop.

Note. — Reported in 205 N. W. 654. See, Headnote, American Key-Numbered Digest, Hail Insurance, Key-No. 13%, 29 C. J. Sec. 2.

The appeal in this action was taken at about the same time that the original proceeding in the case of Fillbach v. Van Camp, Commissioner, was presented to this court. And it is conceded by counsel for both parties .that the facts in this case are practically identical with those in the Fillbach Case. In neither case was there any dispute as to the facts, and it is conceded that these facts present a single question of law, viz: Does the hail insurance law. of this state operate automatically so as to insure crops on land that is neither listed by the assessor nor reported to the county auditor by the owner?

By its decision in Fillbach v. Van Camp, 47 S. D. 407, 199 N. W. 246, above referred to, that question was decided in the negative, and it was held that the affirmative act of listing by the assessor, or of reporting to the auditor by the owner, was required to put insurance into effect. The decision in that case is controlling in the instant case, and, in accordance with that decision, the judgment appealed from herein is hereby reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court, with instructions to that court to enter judgment in accordance with this opinion in favor of the defendant.

Reversed and ’remanded.
#### § 3715.3-4 How will BLM notify me of the outcome of its review process?

At the conclusion of the review, BLM will make a written determination of concurrence or non-concurrence, and will send it to you. For operations conducted under a plan of operations, BLM will include this written determination in the decision that approves, modifies, or rejects the plan.
#### Joel GONZALEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 05-50616.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Feb. 23, 2006.

Joel Gonzalez, Bastrop, TX, pro se.

Before GARZA, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

*211PER CURIAM: *

Joel Gonzalez, federal prisoner # 63438-079, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. He argues that his sentence is invalid in light of *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Gonzalez’s argument is directed toward a sentencing error; such an argument may not be brought under § 2241. *See Padilla v. United States,*416 F.3d 424, 425-26 (5th Cir.2005). Gonzalez’s argument that he is entitled to proceed under § 2241 based on the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because relief under that section is “inadequate or ineffective” is unavailing. *See id.*at 427 (holding that a claim under *Booker*does not fit within the savings clause of § 2255). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

*CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERCERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*

 

In connection with the Annual Report of MedicalCV,Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB, as amended, for the annual period endedApril 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, John H. Jungbauer, Vice President, Finance and ChiefFinancial 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 therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

2.                                       the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 

 
| Dated:  August  25, 2005 | By:    | /s/ John H. Jungbauer       |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|--------|
|                          |   | John H. Jungbauer           |
|                          |   | Vice President, Finance and |
|                          |   | Chief Financial Officer     |

 

----