alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[109th Congress Public Law 19]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ019.109]

[[Page 119 STAT. 344]]

Public Law 109-19
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant 
program through September 30, 2005, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: July 
                        1, 2005 -  [H.R. 3021]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress <<NOTE: TANF Extension Act of 
2005.>> assembled,

SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 42 USC 1305 note.>> SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``TANF Extension Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES BLOCK 
            GRANT PROGRAM THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2005.

    (a) In General.--Activities authorized by part A of title IV of the 
Social Security Act, and by sections 510, 1108(b), and 1925 of such Act, 
shall continue through September 30, 2005, in the manner authorized for 
fiscal year 2004, notwithstanding section 1902(e)(1)(A) of such Act, and 
out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise 
appropriated, there are hereby appropriated such sums as may be 
necessary for such purpose. Grants and payments may be made pursuant to 
this authority through the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2005 at the 
level provided for such activities through the fourth quarter of fiscal 
year 2004.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 403(a)(3)(H)(ii) of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(3)(H)(ii)) is amended by striking ``June 
30'' and inserting ``September 30''.

SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF THE NATIONAL RANDOM SAMPLE STUDY OF CHILD WELFARE 
            AND CHILD WELFARE WAIVER AUTHORITY THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 
            2005.

    Activities authorized by sections 429A and 1130(a) of the Social 
Security Act shall continue through September 30, 2005, in the manner 
authorized for fiscal year 2004, and out of any money in the Treasury of 
the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are hereby 
appropriated such sums as may be necessary for such purpose. Grants and 
payments may be made pursuant to this authority through the fourth 
quarter of fiscal year 2005

[[Page 119 STAT. 345]]

at the level provided for such activities through the fourth quarter of 
fiscal year 2004.

    Approved July 1, 2005.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3021:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 151 (2005):
            June 29, considered and passed House.
            June 30, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
§ 45.47 What are the requirements for subpoenas and witness fees? ( a ) *Request for subpoena.* ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, any party may request by written motion that the ALJ issue a subpoena to the extent authorized by law for the attendance of a person, the giving of testimony, or the production of documents or other relevant evidence during discovery or for the hearing.
( 2 ) A party may request a subpoena for a senior Department employee only if the party shows: ( i ) That the employee's testimony is necessary in order to provide significant, unprivileged information that is not available from any other source or by less burdensome means; and
( ii ) That the employee's attendance would not significantly interfere with the ability to perform his or her government duties.
( b ) *Service.* ( 1 ) A subpoena may be served by any person who is not a party and is 18 years of age or older.
( 2 ) Service must be made by hand delivering a copy of the subpoena to the person named therein.
( 3 ) The person serving the subpoena must: ( i ) Prepare a certificate of service setting forth: ( A ) The date, time, and manner of service; or
( B ) The reason for any failure of service; and
( ii ) Swear to or affirm the certificate, attach it to a copy of the subpoena, and return it to the party on whose behalf the subpoena was served.
( c ) *Witness fees.* ( 1 ) A party who subpoenas a witness who is not a party must pay him or her the same fees and mileage expenses that are paid witnesses in the district courts of the United States.
( 2 ) A witness who is not a party and who attends a deposition or hearing at the request of any party without having been subpoenaed is entitled to the same fees and mileage expenses as if he or she had been subpoenaed. However, this paragraph does not apply to Federal employees who are called as witnesses by a bureau or other Department.
( d ) *Motion to quash.* ( 1 ) A person to whom a subpoena is directed may request by motion that the ALJ quash or modify the subpoena.
( 2 ) The motion must be filed: ( i ) Within 5 days after service of the subpoena; or
( ii ) At or before the time specified in the subpoena for compliance, if that is less than 5 days after service of the subpoena.
( 3 ) The ALJ may quash or modify the subpoena if it: ( i ) Is unreasonable;
( ii ) Requires production of information during discovery that is not discoverable; or
( iii ) Requires disclosure of irrelevant, privileged, or otherwise protected information.
( e ) *Enforcement.* For good cause shown, the ALJ may apply to the appropriate United States District Court for the issuance of an order compelling the appearance and testimony of a witness or the production of evidence as set forth in a subpoena that has been duly issued and served.
<PAGE>





                                                                    Exhibit 11.1


             CERTIFICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
           AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Bayer AG (the "Company")
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned
chief executive officer and chief financial officer of Bayer AG certifies in
accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the "Sarbanes-Oxley Act"), to the best of his
knowledge and belief, 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 operations of the
      Company.


                                     /s/     WERNER WENNING
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Name:   Werner Wenning
                                     Title:  Chairman of the Board of Management


                                     /s/    KLAUS KUEHN
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Name:  Klaus Kuehn
                                     Title: Chief Financial Officer and
                                     Member of the Board of Management


Date: June 27, 2003


This certification accompanies the Report in accordance with Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### H. Renee BAKER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND, Defendant—Appellee, and Bruce M. Smoller, Material Witness, Defendant.

No. 05-1883.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.

Decided March 6, 2006.

*786Curtis C. Osborne, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. David S. Whit-acre, County Attorney, Rajeshanand Kumar, Associate County Attorney, Tonia Y. Belton-Gofreed, Associate County Attorney, Office of Law for Prince George’s County, Maryland, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

H. Renee Baker, formerly employed as a police officer by Prince George’s County, Maryland (“the County”), appeals a district court order granting summary judgment to the County on her claims for gender discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge, all pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, see 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e-2(a)(l), 2000e-3(a) (West 2003). The district court held that Baker’s gender discrimination claim failed because she had not shown that the nondiscriminatory reasons given by the County for not promoting her were pretextual. Regarding Baker’s retaliation claim, the district court determined that Baker had not established a causal connection between her filing of discrimination complaints and any adverse employment action. As to Baker’s constructive discharge claim, the district court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to *787show that the County had deliberately subjected Baker to intolerable working conditions.

After reviewing the parties’ briefs and the applicable law, we conclude that the district court correctly decided the issues before it. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Baker v. Prince George’s County,*No. RWT-02-3085, Hr’g Tr. (D.Md. Sept. 27, 2004). 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*
Malaspina Forelands Subsistence Access Aircraft Exemption 43°30'0"W 143°0'0"W 142°30'0"W 142°0'0"W 141°30'0"W 141°0'0"W 140°30'0"W 140°0'0"W 139°30'0"W 139°0'0"W 61 0 0 N 60 30 0 N 

60°30'0"N 

60 0 0 N 

60°0'0"N 59°30'0"N 

 

-

144°0'0"W 143°30'0"W 143°0'0"W 142°30'0"W 142°0'0"W 141°30'0"W 141°0'0"W

0 10 20 30 40 5 

¶ 

Legend

Park Outline- WRST 

Subsistence Access Aircraft Exemption

& Malaspina ORV Restriction

Park 

Park/Wilderness

Preserve 

Preserve/Wilderness 

Wrangell St. Elias National Park and Preserve

Miles 

ResourcesT:\GIS\compendium\Yak_spec_provisions.pdf 04132012 jms C:\GIS\mxds\Compendium_and_legal_maps\Malaspina_ORV_compendium 04132012 jms 

140°30'0"W 140°0'0"W
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In the Matter of: PELI POPOVICH HUNT, 

Debtor.

______________________________

PELI POPOVICH HUNT; 2007 Restated 

Robert and Peli Hunt Living Trust, 

Appellant, 

 v. 

ELISSA D. MILLER, Chapter 7 Trustee; et 

al., 

Appellees.

Nos. 14-56390

 14-56392

 15-55619

D.C. No. 2:12-cv-08439-MMM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2017**

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Peli Popovich Hunt appeals pro se from the district court’s order affirming 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes these cases is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 5 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-56390 

the bankruptcy court’s orders granting the chapter 7 trustee’s motion to sell real 

property and overruling Hunt’s objection to a proof of claim filed in her 

bankruptcy case. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and 1291. We 

review de novo the district court’s decision on appeal from the bankruptcy court

and apply the same standards of review applied by the district court. In re Thorpe 

Insulation Co., 677 F.3d 869, 879 (9th Cir. 2012).

The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to approve the sale of the real property 

because an order approving the sale of estate property is enumerated as a core 

proceeding that bankruptcy judges are empowered to hear and determine. See 11 

U.S.C. § 157(b). Hunt’s interest in the real property at issue became property of 

the bankruptcy estate upon Hunt’s filing of a bankruptcy petition. See 11 U.S.C.

§ 541(a)(1); Turner v. Cook, 362 F.3d 1219, 1225-26 (9th Cir. 2004) (all legal or 

equitable interests of a debtor in property become property of the bankruptcy estate 

upon the commencement of a bankruptcy case).

Because there are no exceptional circumstances indicating that this court

should consider arguments not raised on appeal to the district court, we do not 

consider Hunt’s arguments challenging the bankruptcy court’s order overruling her 

objection to the proof of claim. See Burnett v. Resurgent Capital Servs. (In re 

Burnett), 435 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2006).

Hunt’s pro se appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order in her capacity as the 
3 14-56390 

trustee of a trust is dismissed because Hunt, as a non-attorney, “has no authority to 

appear as an attorney for others than [her]self.” Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 

F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 

818 F.2d 696, 697-98 (9th Cir. 1987)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. 

Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions are denied.

Appeal Nos. 14-56390, 15-55619: AFFIRMED.

Appeal No. 14-56392: DISMISSED.
----

Action brought on 3 November 2005 — Italian Republic v Commission

(Case T-402/05)

(2006/C 22/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant(s): Italian Republic (represented by: Danilo Del Gaizo, Avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission (1).

----

(1)OJ C 262 of 23. 10. 2004, p. 55.

----
DISMISS and Opinion Filed October 30, 2019 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01193-CV 

CARE TECTURE, LLC DBA PHARMA COMPOUNDIA, Appellant 

V. 

MATHESON COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, LLC, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 007-02523-2019 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Whitehill, and Justice Schenck 

Opinion by Justice Whitehill 

Before the Court is appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal. Pursuant to Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1), we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.1(a)(1). 

191193F.P05 

 

/Bill Whitehill/ 

BILL WHITEHILL 

JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

CARE TECTURE, LLC DBA PHARMA 

COMPOUNDIA, Appellant 

No. 05-19-01193-CV V. 

MATHESON COMMERCIAL 

PROPERTIES, LLC, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 7, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 007-02523-2019. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill, 

Chief Justice Burns and Justice Schenck 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

 Subject to any agreement between the parties, we ORDER that appellee Matheson 

Commercial Properties, LLC recover its costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant Care Tecture, 

LLC dba Pharma Compoundia. 

Judgment entered October 30, 2019.
### §1353. Indian allotments

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action involving the right of any person, in whole or in part of Indian blood or descent, to any allotment of land under any Act of Congress or treaty.

The judgment in favor of any claimant to an allotment of land shall have the same effect, when properly certified to the Secretary of the Interior, as if such allotment had been allowed and approved by him; but this provision shall not apply to any lands held on or before December 21, 1911, by either of the Five Civilized Tribes, the Osage Nation of Indians, nor to any of the lands within the Quapaw Indian Agency.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 934.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §41(24) (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §24, par. 24, 36 Stat. 1094; Dec. 21, 1911, ch. 5, 37 Stat. 46).

Words "any civil action" were substituted for "all actions, suits, or proceedings," in view of Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The sentence "The right of appeal shall be allowed to either party as in other cases" was omitted as covered by section 1291 of this title, relating to appeals to the court of appeals.

Changes in phraseology were made.
#### The Ansonia, Respondent, *v.*Edna Valentine Hein, Now Known as Mrs. Norman Selby, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 3d day of December, 1914, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order entered on the same day denying a motion for a new trial.

Per Curiam:

The plaintiff has failed to sustain the burden of proof that the alterations in the lease sued on were made before signature by the plaintiff and delivery. The judgment and order appealed from must, therefore, be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.; Dowling, J., dissented. Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.: 0:20-cv-61023-RUIZ/STRAUSS

MATTHEW BUCKLEY and

TOP GUN OPTIONS, LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EMMETT MOORE and 

TRADINGSCHOOLS.ORG,

 Defendants.

 /

DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF ITS MOTION FOR BOND AND 

REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 

SECTION 501.211(3)

TO THE COURT, THE HONORABLE JARED M. STRAUSS, THE PARTIES AND THEIR 

ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Please take notice that Defendants Emmett Moore and 

Tradingschools.org are withdrawing their previously filed Motion for Bond and Request for 

Evidentiary Hearing Pursuant to Florida Statute Section 501.211(3) (“Bond Motion”), filed on 

April 29, 2021, as D.E. 73. Defendants reserve the right to refile their Bond Motion at a later 

date and will meet and confer with Plaintiffs prior to said filing. Counsel for Defendants notified 

Plaintiffs’ counsel in writing on May 17, 2021 of their withdrawal of the Bond Motion.

Because said Bond Motion is effectively withdrawn, Defendants consider Plaintiffs’ 

Motion to Strike and for Sanctions [D.E. 74] moot. To the extent Defendants are in error or 

Plaintiffs do not withdraw their motion to strike, Defendants will submit a response within 

fourteen (14) days of the filing of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike and for sanctions, or on or about 

May 27, 2021.

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 80 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/18/2021 Page 1 of 2
2

Dated: May 18, 2021 Respectfully Submitted,

 /s/Susanne Arani___ 

Susanne Arani, Esq.

Arani Law

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

California Bar No. 238891

susarani@gmail.com

1028 Rosario Lane

Vista, California 92084

Tel.: (760) 331-8426

___/s/ Matthew Fornaro__

Matthew Fornaro, Esq.

Matthew Fornaro, P.A.

Florida Bar No.: 0650641

mfornaro@fornarolegal.com

11555 Heron Bay Blvd., Ste. 200

Coral Springs, FL 33076

Tel.: (924) 324-3651

Attorneys for Defendants Emmett Moore &

Tradingschools.org

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 80 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/18/2021 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Charles S.Hilliard, President and Chief Financial Officer of United Online, Inc.(the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to myknowledge:

(a)   the AnnualReport on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31,2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(b)   the information contained in such report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of operations of theCompany.
| Dated: March 1, 2007               |     |
|-----------------------------------------|----------|
|                                    |     |
| /s/ CHARLES S.  HILLIARD                |     |
| Charles S. Hilliard                     |     |
| *President and Chief Financial Officer* | * * |

 

----
450 P.2d 633

#### Ronnie GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. STATE of New Mexico, Respondent.

No. 8786.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Jan. 21, 1969.

Ordered that petition for writ of certiorari be and the same is hereby denied.

Further ordered that the record in Court of Appeals Cause No. 165, 79 N.M. 732, 449 P.2d 334, be and the same is hereby returned to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals.
#### Rose Cohn, Plaintiff in Error, v. M. J. Lewis et al., Defendants in Error.

Gen. No. 18,586.

Municipal *court—certificate of trial court.*The appellate court may on motion-strike from the transcript of the record an instrument designated “a correct statement of facts of the proceedings on the trial and of such other proceedings in the case to be reviewed,” where there is no certificate of the trial judge that it is a correct statement of facts appearing on the trial and of the questions of law involved and of the decisions of the court thereon as required by the Municipal Court Act.

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Harry P. Dolan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.

Writ of error dismissed.

Opinion filed January 8, 1913.

Joseph Kohn, for plaintiff in error.

Sabbath, Levinson & Stafford, for defendant in error.

Per Curiam.

A motion has been made in this case to strike from the transcript of the record an instrument designated *“a*correct statement of facts of the proceedings had on the trial of said cause and a correct statement of such other proceedings in the case to be reviewed.”

An examination of the document shows it does not conform to the statute. There is no certificate of the trial judge that it is a correct statement of facts appearing upon the trial and of the questions of law involved and of the decisions of the court thereon. We find in the record an order extending the time in which to file a stenographic report, hut none was filed. The motion is granted. Seehausen Wehrs & Co. v. Interstate S. *&*I. Co., 150 Ill. App. 179; Levy v. Frohlich & Co., 172 Ill. App. 170; Allen v. Roughan, 175 Ill. App. 380.

A further motion is made that the writ of error be *273dismissed. We find no assignment of error which can be considered in the absence of a “stenographic report of the proceedings had at the trial,” or a “correct statement of the facts,” etc., as required by paragraph 6 of section 23 of the Municipal Court Act. The writ of error will therefore be dismissed.

*Writ of error dismissed.*
HomeAbout NRCRadiation ProtectionHow the NRC Protects YouHealth Physics Positions Based on 10 CFR Part 20

# Health Physics Questions and Answers - Question 93

**Question 93:** In the definition of individual monitoring devices, is there any reason electronic monitoring devices are not mentioned?

**Answer:** No. The particular devices included in this definition are a few examples, not a comprehensive listing, of such devices.

(Reference: 10 CFR 20.1003).

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, December 13, 2017