alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §6806. Occupational tax stamps

Every person engaged in any business, avocation, or employment, who is thereby made liable to a special tax (other than a special tax under subchapter B of chapter 35, under subchapter B of chapter 36, or under subtitle E) shall place and keep conspicuously in his establishment or place of business all stamps denoting payment of such special tax.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 831; Pub. L. 89–44, title VI, §601(e), June 21, 1965, 79 Stat. 155; Pub. L. 90–618, title II, §204, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1235.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Subchapter B of chapter 36, referred to in text, was repealed by Pub. L. 95–600, title V, §521(b), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2884.

#### Amendments

1968—Pub. L. 90–618 substituted "Occupational tax stamps" for "Posting occupational tax stamps" in section catchline, and substituted provisions that every person liable for a special tax (other than a special tax under subchapter B of chapter 35, under subchapter B of chapter 36, or under subtitle E of this title) conspicuously place and keep in his place of business all stamps denoting payment of such special tax for provisions that every person liable for a special tax conspicuously place and keep in his place or business all stamps denoting payment of said special tax, provisions that authorized the Secretary or his delegate to require that the stamps denoting the payment of the special tax imposed by section 4461 of this title be posted on or in each device so that it will be visible to any person operating the device, and provisions that every person liable for the special tax under section 4411 of this title place the stamp denoting payment of such special tax in a conspicuous place in his place of business, or, if he has no such place of business, to keep such stamp on his person.

1965—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 89–44 struck out "amusement and" after "Coin-operated" in heading.

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

#### Effective Date of 1968 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 90–618 effective Oct. 22, 1968, see section 207 of Pub. L. 90–618, set out as an Effective Date note under section 5801 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1965 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 89–44 to take effect in a manner consistent with effective date of change of tax provision to which related, see section 701(e) of Pub. L. 89–44, set out as a note under section 6103 of this title.
### §88. Certain amounts with respect to nuclear decommissioning costs

In the case of any taxpayer who is required to include the amount of any nuclear decommissioning costs in the taxpayer's cost of service for ratemaking purposes, there shall be includible in the gross income of such taxpayer the amount so included for any taxable year.

(Added Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, title I, §91(f)(1), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 607; amended Pub. L. 99–514, title XVIII, §1807(a)(4)(E)(vii), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2813.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1986—Pub. L. 99–514 substituted "for ratemaking purposes" for "of ratemaking purposes".

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

#### Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 99–514 effective, except as otherwise provided, as if included in the provisions of the Tax Reform Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98–369, div. A, to which such amendment relates, see section 1881 of Pub. L. 99–514, set out as a note under section 48 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Section effective July 18, 1984, with respect to taxable years ending after such date, see section 91(g)(5) of Pub. L. 98–369, as amended, set out as an Effective Date of 1984 Amendment note under section 461 of this title.

#### Plan Amendments Not Required Until January 1, 1989

For provisions directing that if any amendments made by subtitle A or subtitle C of title XI [§§1101–1147 and 1171–1177] or title XVIII [§§1800–1899A] of Pub. L. 99–514 require an amendment to any plan, such plan amendment shall not be required to be made before the first plan year beginning on or after Jan. 1, 1989, see section 1140 of Pub. L. 99–514, as amended, set out as a note under section 401 of this title.
crowell r4morin 

g 

1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004-2595 ■ p 202 624-2500 ■ f 202 628-5116 

Gerald F. Murphy 

(202) 508-8855 

gmurphy@crowell.com 

June 5, 2015 

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL 

Mr. Paul Gretch 

Director 

Office of International Aviation 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Room W86-316 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Polling Results for Application of United Airlines, Inc. for an Exemption 

(Chicago-Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands), Docket DOT-OST-2015-0125 

Dear Mr. Gretch: 

We have polled and received non-objections from each of the carriers on the attached 

service list for the above-referenced United lapplication. Prompt approval is requested so 

that United can secure foreign authority, make final operating plans, and begin marketing the 

Chicago-Grand Cayman flights well in advance of operations, which it plans to commence 

on or about December 19, 2015, provided all necessary approvals have been secured. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Gerald F. Murphy 

Counsel for 

United Airlines, Inc. 

cc: Robert Finamore, Brian Hedberg, Brett Kruger 

All Parties on the attached Service List 

1 Common names are used for airlines. 

Crowell & Moring LLP . www.crowell.com. Washington, DC . New York . San Francisco ■ Los Angeles ■ Orange County . Anchorage . London . Brussels 
SERVICE LIST 

howard.kass(a~ aa. com 

robert.wiricka aa.com 

esahr(a~eckertseamans.com 

dderco g eckertseamans. com 

robert.landgj etblue.com 

sascha. vanderbelleng delta. com 

chris.walkergdelta.com 

Crowell & Moring LLP . www.crowell.com . Washington, DC . New York . San Francisco . Los Angeles . Orange County . Anchorage . London . Brussels
39–008 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 109–105 

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2744, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006 

JUNE 7, 2005.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. PUTNAM, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 303] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 303, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House 

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 2744, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 

Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 2006, under an open rule. The 

rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order 

against consideration of the bill. 

Under the rules of the House the bill shall be read for amendment by paragraph. The rule waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI (prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an 

appropriations bill), except as specified in the resolution. The rule 

authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members 

who have pre-printed their amendments in the Congressional 

Record. 

Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

EXPLANATION OF WAIVERS

The waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill 

includes a waiver of clause 4 of rule XIII (availability of printed 

hearing from the Committee on Appropriations). 

The waiver of clause 2 of rule XXI (prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill) 

2 

against provisions in the bill is necessary, because there are numerous unauthorized appropriations and legislative provisions bill. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to clause 3(b) of House rule XIII the results of each 

record vote on an amendment or motion to report, together with 

the names of those voting for and against, are printed below. 

Rules Committee record vote No. 78 

Date: June 7, 2005. 

Measure: H.R. 2744, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 

Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 

2006. 

Motion by: Mr. McGovern. 

Summary of motion: To make in order and provide the appropriate waivers for the amendment offered by Representative Hinchey which empowers the Food and Drug Administration with the 

authority to require companies to conduct post-marketing studies of 

FDA-approved drugs, and to mandate changes to the labels of 

FDA-approved drugs. 

Results: Defeated 2 to 8. 

Vote by Members: Diaz-Balart—Nay; Hastings (WA)—Nay; Putnam—Nay; Capito—Nay; Cole—Nay; Bishop—Nay; Gingrey—Nay; 

McGovern—Yea; Matsui—Yea; Dreier—Nay. 

Æ
### §6403. Overpayment of installment

In the case of a tax payable in installments, if the taxpayer has paid as an installment of the tax more than the amount determined to be the correct amount of such installment, the overpayment shall be credited against the unpaid installments, if any. If the amount already paid, whether or not on the basis of installments, exceeds the amount determined to be the correct amount of the tax, the overpayment shall be credited or refunded as provided in section 6402.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 791.)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7482

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

UJIMA CRUDUP, a/k/a Oo, a/k/a Uji,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (4:11-cr-00052-AWA-LRL-2)

Submitted: May 19, 2021 Decided: May 28, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ujima Crudup, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ujima Crudup appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. We have reviewed the record and 

find no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Crudup, 

No. 4:11-cr-00052-AWA-LRL-2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 23, 2020). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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 HIGH

 141

 148

 173

 254

 278

 310

 340

 375

 400

 407

 402

 316

 334

 368

 382

 393

 390

 304

 214

 231

 262

 237

 237

 238

 215

 190

 189

 213

 263

 326

 341

 136

 138

 149

 176

 255

 280

 312

 343

 377

 398

 316

 296

 300

 336

 371

 372

 307

 218

 182

 196

 232

 209

 210

 216

 192

 181

 185

 185

 215

 266

 329

 138

 142

 157

 218

 265

 293

 326

 361

 395

 404

 364

 304

 314

 355

 377

 385

 356

 266

 197

 211

 250

 218

 223

 230

 202

 187

 187

 195

 236

 295

 335

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

OCTOBER 2019 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: November 13, 2019

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

30 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

30 DAY

AVG 

MEAN

 5,942

 5,884

 5,834

 5,816

 5,823

 5,840

 5,881

 5,973

 6,201

 6,439

 6,597

 6,669

 6,728

 6,802

 6,938

 7,139

 7,314

 7,405

 7,429

 7,465

 7,539

 7,583

 7,637

 7,688

 7,712

 7,724

 7,761

 7,806

 7,895

 8,051

 8,248

 198

 196

 194

 194

 194

 195

 196

 199

 207

 215

 220

 222

 224

 227

 231

 238

 244

 247

 248

 249

 251

 253

 255

 256

 257

 257

 259

 260

 263

 268

 275

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

30 DAY ACCUM MEAN and 30 DAY AVG MEAN columns are 30 day runnings, except for April 1 and September 1, 

 where they do not go back 30 days.

VERNALIS ON THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
#### Alice W. Barnum et al., Respondents, v. Minnie Rome et al., Defendants, and John E. De Baun, as Building Inspector of the Town of Ramapo, Appellant.

The appellant is the Building Inspector of the Town of Ramapo, Rock-land County. In an action between private parties a judgment was entered by their consent containing, among other things, a paragraph declaring that certain building permits theretofore issued by the Building Inspector were null and void and directing that the Building Inspector cancel such permits. The appellant was not a party to the action in which the judgment was entered. Appellant moved to modify the judgment insofar as it made the declaration and the direction described above. The motion was denied. Appeal dismissed, without costs. While the appellant is not an aggrieved party, it is our opinion that, on the merits, affirmance would be unavoidable. This determination, however, does not indicate any illegal conduct on the part of the Building Inspector of the Town of Ramapo. Hagarty, Acting P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ., concur. [See *post,*p. Sll.]
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

May 14,2003

 

VIA EDGAR

Securitiesand Exchange Commission

450 FifthStreet, N.W.

Washington,D.C. 20549

 

**Re:          SegueSoftware, Inc. Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asAdopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

Ladies andGentlemen:

 

In connection with the quarterly report of Segue Software, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period endingMarch 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Douglas Zaccaro, Acting Co-Chief ExecutiveOfficer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify that:

 

1. the Company’s Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

 

2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, and shall not be deemed a part of the Report.

 
|   | Sincerely,                                                       |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                             |
|   | /s/ Douglas Zaccaro                                              |   |
|   | Douglas Zaccaro                                                  |
|   | *Acting Co-Chief  Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----
#### § 107.430 Notification to SBA of transactions that may change ownership or Control.

You must promptly notify SBA as soon as you have knowledge of transactions or events that may result in a transfer of Control or ownership of at least 10 percent of your capital. If there is any doubt as to whether a particular transaction or event will result in such a change, report the facts to SBA.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsA study of strength evaluations of EDNi/EDCu/NARloy-Z bonded jointsDissimilar material interfaces can be found in many materials and structural bonds such as composite materials, welded parts, inclusion in matrix, bond between metallic and ceramic materials, and so forth. One of such structural bonds can be seen in the main combustion chamber (MCC) of the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME). In this study, from a practical sense, the primary concern is to understand the systems response of EDNi/EDCu/NARloy-Z bonded joints using stress values approximated by the finite element method to determine an influence of the variation of structural bond parameters on the bonded joints, and consequently main combustion chamber of the Space Shuttle Main Engine. The results presented in this study could be an appropriate indicator for a good bond of EDNi/DECu/NARloy-Z layers with the desired thickness of copper deposition in the SSME MCC manufacturing process. Furthermore, the results from this study appear to be applicable to any bonded joints that can be characterized by the parameters and assumptions used in this analysis.Document ID19940006803Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsMin, J. B.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL, United States)*Spanyer, K. L.*(NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJuly 1, 1993Subject CategoryStructural MechanicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:108418NASA-TM-108418Accession Number94N11275Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19940006803.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Thomas Flanagan, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Present — Glen-non, J. P., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Van Voorhis, JJ.
1 NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No

. 123,130

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

S TATE OF K ANSAS , Appellee ,

v.

L ARRY D. S TEVENSON S R

. , Appellant

.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Sedgwick District Court; E RIC W ILLIAM S , judge. Opinion filed June 11 , 202 1

. Appeal dismissed.

Submitted by the parties for summary disposition under K.S.A. 20 20 Supp. 21

- 6820 (g) and (h).

B efore M ALONE , P .J., P OWELL and W ARNER , J J

.

P ER C URIAM : Larry D. Stevenson Sr. appeals his sentence following his conviction of one count of violating the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA). We granted Stevenson's motion for summary disposition under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 48). The State has responded and asks us to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

On June 3, 2020, Stevenson pled guilty to one count of violating KORA by failing to report for registration as required. Under the plea agreement, both parties

recomm ended that the district court grant Stevenson's motion for a durational departure and impose a 34

- month prison sentence. At the sentencing hearing on July 15, 2020, the2 district court approved the plea agreement and granted Stevenson's motion for a departu re sentence of 34

- months ' imprisonment with 24

- months ' postrelease supervision.

Even though Stevenson received the exact sentence that he asked the district court to impose, his public defender filed a notice of appeal and the district court dutifully

app ointed the appellate defender's office to handle the appeal. In the motion for summary disposition, Stevenson argues that " the district court erred in sentencing him. " But he concedes that this court lacks jurisdiction to review a plea

- negotiated sentence that the district court approve d on the record . The State's response points out the same thing.

Both parties are correct. Under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21

- 6820(c)(2), appellate courts
shall not review any sentence resulting from an agreement between the State and the defendant which the sentencing court approves on the record. And even though K.S.A.
2020 S upp. 21

- 6820(a) provides that a departure sentence is subject to appeal by either party, K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21

- 6820(c)(2) is a more specific provision than K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21

- 6820(a). See State v. Cooper , 54 Kan. App. 2d 25, 28, 394 P.3d 1194 (2017).
Thus , we lack jurisdiction to review Stevenson's plea

- negotiated sentence even though
the sentence results from a departure.

Appeal dismissed.
§ 4.1156 Summary disposition. ( a ) In a civil penalty proceeding where the person against whom the proposed civil penalty is assessed fails to comply on time with any prehearing order of an administrative law judge, the administrative law judge shall issue an order to show cause why— ( 1 ) That person should not be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing; and
( 2 ) The proceedings should not be dismissed and referred to the assessment officer.
( b ) If the order to show cause is not satisfied as required, the administrative law judge shall order the proceedings summarily dismissed and shall refer the case to the assessment officer who shall enter the assessment as the final order of the Department.
( c ) Where the person against whom the proposed civil penalty is assessed fails to appear at a hearing, that person will be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and the administration law judge may assume for purposes of the assessment— ( 1 ) That each violation listed in the notice of violation or order occurred; and
( 2 ) The truth of any facts alleged in such notice or order.
( d ) In order to issue an initial decision assessing the appropriate penalty when the person against whom the proposed civil penalty is assessed fails to appear at the hearing, an administrative law judge shall either conduct an ex parte hearing or require OSM to furnish proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
( e ) Nothing in this section shall be construed to deprive the person against whom the penalty is assessed of his opportunity to have OSM prove the violations charged in open hearing with confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses, except where that person fails to comply with a prehearing order or fails to appear at the scheduled hearing.