alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PUBLIC LAW 109–4—MAR. 25, 2005 119 STAT. 17

Public Law 109–4

109th Congress

An Act

To reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program

through June 30, 2005, and for other purposes.

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 ‘‘Welfare Reform Extension Act

of 2005’’.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY

FAMILIES BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM THROUGH JUNE 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 June 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 third quarter of fiscal year 2005 at the level provided

for such activities through the third 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 ‘‘March 31’’ and inserting ‘‘June 30’’.

SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF THE NATIONAL RANDOM SAMPLE STUDY OF

CHILD WELFARE AND CHILD WELFARE WAIVER

AUTHORITY THROUGH JUNE 30, 2005.

Activities authorized by sections 429A and 1130(a) of the Social

Security Act shall continue through June 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 third quarter of fiscal year 2005 at the

42 USC 603.

Welfare Reform

Extension Act

of 2005.

42 USC 1305

note.

Mar. 25, 2005

[H.R. 1160]

119 STAT. 18 PUBLIC LAW 109–4—MAR. 25, 2005

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1160:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 151 (2005):

Mar. 14, considered and passed House.

Mar. 15, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

level provided for such activities through the third quarter of fiscal

year 2004.

Approved March 25, 2005.
### §434. Exemption of attorney-client communications

Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to require an attorney who is a member in good standing of the bar of any State, to include in any report required to be filed pursuant to the provisions of this chapter any information which was lawfully communicated to such attorney by any of his clients in the course of a legitimate attorney-client relationship.

(Pub. L. 86–257, title II, §204, Sept. 14, 1959, 73 Stat. 528.)
#### Anna Jacobson, Plaintiff, v. Ignatz Jacobson, Defendant. Max Brown, Appellant; Nathaniel Rosenberg, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present—Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2


                                POWERLINX, INC.

    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 PowerLinx,  Inc. on Form 10-Q/A for
the period  ended  March 31,  2006 as filed  with the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Douglas Bauer, Chief Financial
Officer of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  ss.1350,  as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  PowerLinx,  Inc.  and will be  retained  by  PowerLinx,  Inc.  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



/s/ Douglas Bauer
-----------------------
Douglas Bauer
Chief Financial Officer
August 22, 2006
#### § 296.43 Judicial review.

As an alternative to arbitration, a claimant dissatisfied with the outcome of an Administrative Appeal may seek judicial review of the decision by bringing a civil lawsuit against FEMA in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. This lawsuit must be brought within 60 Days of the date that appears on the Administrative Appeal decision. Pursuant to section 104(i) of the Act, the court may only consider evidence in the Administrative Record. The court will uphold FEMA's decision if it is supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.
### §2505. Trial before judges

Any judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims may sit at any place within the United States to take evidence and enter judgment.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 976; Sept. 3, 1954, ch. 1263, §54(a), (b), 68 Stat. 1246; Pub. L. 97–164, title I, §139(d), Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 42; Pub. L. 102–572, title IX, §902(a)(1), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4516.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§275 and 275a (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §167, 36 Stat. 1140; Feb. 24, 1925, ch. 301, §2, 43 Stat. 965; June 23, 1930, ch. 573, §1, 46 Stat. 799; Oct. 16, 1941, ch. 443, 55 Stat. 741).

Changes were made in phraseology.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1992—Pub. L. 102–572 substituted "United States Court of Federal Claims" for "United States Claims Court".

1982—Pub. L. 97–164 substituted "United States Claims Court" for "Court of Claims" and "enter judgment" for "report findings".

1954—Act Sept. 3, 1954, substituted "Trial before judges" for "Place of taking evidence" in section catchline and repealed second par. relating to taking of testimony.

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

#### Effective Date of 1992 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–572 effective Oct. 29, 1992, see section 911 of Pub. L. 102–572, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.

#### Effective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–164 effective Oct. 1, 1982, see section 402 of Pub. L. 97–164, set out as a note under section 171 of this title.
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.425 Transit and transshipment of non-originating cotton or man-made fiber fabric or apparel goods. ( a ) *General.* A good will not be considered eligible for preferential tariff treatment under an applicable TPL by reason of having undergone production that occurs entirely in the territory of Chile, the United States, or both, that would enable the good to qualify for preferential tariff treatment if subsequent to that production the good undergoes further production or any other operation outside the territories of Chile and the United States, other than unloading, reloading, or any other process necessary to preserve the good in good condition or to transport the good to the territory of Chile or the United States.
( b ) *Documentary evidence.* An importer making a claim for preferential tariff treatment may be required to demonstrate, to CBP's satisfaction, that no further production or subsequent operation, other than permitted under paragraph (a) of this section, occurred outside the territories of Chile or the United States. An importer may demonstrate compliance with this section by submitting documentary evidence. Such evidence may include, but is not limited to, bills of lading, packing lists, commercial invoices, and customs entry and exit documents.
----

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 2256/2003/EC in view of the extension of the programme in 2006 for the dissemination of good practices and monitoring ICT take-up

(COM(2005) 347 final — 2005/0144 (COD))

(2006/C 28/20)

On 10 October 2005 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 157(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

On 27 September 2005, the Committee Bureau instructed the Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society to prepare the Committee's work on the subject.

Given the urgent nature of the work, the European Economic and Social Committee appointed Mr Retureau as rapporteur-general at its 421st plenary session, held on 26 and 27 October 2005 (meeting of 27 October), and adopted the following opinion by 79 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions.

1.   Introduction

2.   General comments

Brussels, 27 October 2005.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

----

(1)  COM(2002) 425 final – 2002/0187 CNS; Decision No 2256/2003/EC; EESC Opinion OJ C 61 of 14.3.2003 AC – rapporteur: Mr Retureau.

----
#### § 7.926 Age distinctions contained in FEMA regulations.

Any age distinctions contained in a rule or regulation issued by FEMA shall be presumed to be necessary to the achievement of a statutory objective of the program or activity to which the rule or regulation applies, notwithstanding the provisions of § 7.921.

[55 FR 23078, June 6, 1990, as amended at 68 FR 51380, Aug. 26, 2003]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

# DATES:

Written comments should be received on or before November 18, 2004 to be assured of consideration.

## Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

*OMB Number:*                     1545-1010.                

*Form Number:*                     IRS Form 1120-RIC.                

*Type of Review:*                     Revision.                

*Title:*                     U.S. Income Tax Return for Regulated Investment Companies.                

*Description:*                     Form 1120-RIC is filed by a domestic corporation electing to be taxed as a RIC in order to report its income and deductions and to compute its tax liability. IRS uses form 1120-RIC to determine whether the RIC has correctly reported its income, deductions, and tax liability.                

*Respondents:*                     Business or other for-profit.                

*Estimated Number of Respondents/Recordkeepers:*                     3,277.                

*Estimated Burden Hours Respondent/Recordkeeper:*

Recordkeeping—57 hr., 9 min.

Learning about the law or the form—20 hr., 43 min.

Preparing the form—36 hr., 30 min.

Copying, assembling, and sending the form to the IRS—4 hr., 1 min.

*Frequency of response:*                     Annually.                

*Estimated Total Reporting/Recordkeeping Burden:*                     380,325 hours.                

*Clearance Officer:*                     Paul H. Finger (202) 622-4078, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.                

*OMB Reviewer:*                     Joseph F. Lackey, Jr. (202) 395-7316, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.                

Lois K. Holland,

Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 04-23358 Filed 10-18-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### Banco di Roma, Appellant, v. Louis J. Scaramelli, Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Scaramelli & Company, Respondent. Francis Gilbert, as Assignee, etc., of A. Bolognesi *&*Company, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 98-112 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Wednesday, July 8, 1998)

NRC ORDER TO PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CONFIRMS FIRE BARRIER

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AT SUSQUEHANNA UNITS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued a confirmatory order to

Pennsylvania Power & Light Company confirming its commitment to complete ThermoLag fire barrier corrective actions by the end of April 2000 at its two-unit Susquehanna

nuclear power plant in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.

Sam Collins, Director of the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, said

the order was issued because of concern “that some licensees may not be making

adequate progress toward resolving the plant-specific issues, and that some

implementation schedules may either be too tenuous or too protracted.”

Thermo-Lag is a fire barrier material manufactured and supplied by Thermal

Science, Inc., of St. Louis, Missouri, and has been used to provide fire resistance to

wiring and equipment at nuclear plants. The NRC has been concerned that ThermoLag 330-1 fire barrier material installed by some of its licensees may not provide the

intended level of fire protection and that licensees thus may not be meeting regulatory

requirements. Between 1992 and 1994, the NRC staff issued letters to all nuclear

utilities asking licensees to submit plans and schedules for resolving the issue. All

licensees with Thermo-Lag fire barriers have implemented around-the-clock “fire

watches,” using workers to patrol vital plant areas on a regular basis to watch for signs

of fire until corrective actions have been completed.

In a letter to Pennsylvania Power officials, Collins noted that NRC has met with

licensees to review their progress in completing implementation of their fire barrier

programs, but remains concerned about slow progress on resolution of the issue.

Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. was one of the licensees with which NRC has

periodically held meetings. At these meetings, the NRC reviewed Pennsylvania Power

& Light Co.’s schedule for Thermo-Lag corrective actions and concluded they are

reasonable. The company formally agreed June 3 to the terms of the confirmatory

order. Thermo-Lag corrective actions are about 40 percent complete at Susquehanna.

About 20 other plants have received or will soon receive similar orders in the coming

months.
##

Additional information on Thermo-Lag fire barriers can be found on the NRC

Internet web page at: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/gmo/tip/tip9826.htm
Exhibit 4.1



		

			Exhibit 4.1

		


		

			 

		




		
			DESCRIPTION OF CAPITAL STOCK
		

		
			 
		

		
			Mobivity Holdings Corp. (“Company”, “we”, “us” and “our”) has one class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, namely our common stock, par value $0.001 per share.
		

		
			 
		

		
			The following is a summary of the rights of our common and of certain provisions of our Articles of Incorporation, as amended (“Articles of Incorporation”), and Bylaws, as amended (“Bylaws”). For more detailed information, please see our Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, which are incorporated by reference as exhibits to the Annual Report on Form 10-K to which this description is an exhibit.
		

		
			 
		

		
			Common Stock
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			Our Articles of Incorporation authorizes us to issue up to 100,000,000 shares of common stock, $0.001 par value per share.  Holders of shares of common stock are entitled to one vote per share on all matters to be voted upon by the stockholders generally. Stockholders are entitled to receive such dividends as may be declared from time to time by the Board out of funds legally available therefore, and in the event of liquidation, dissolution or winding up of the company to share ratably in all assets remaining after payment of liabilities. The holders of shares of common stock have no preemptive, conversion, subscription rights or cumulative voting rights.
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			Dividends
		

		
			 
		

		
			We have never paid cash dividends on our common stock and we do not anticipate the payment of cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future.
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			Transfer Agent and Registrar
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			The transfer agent and registrar for our common stock is Colonial Stock Transfer Co, Inc., 66 Exchange Place, Ste 100., Salt Lake City, UT 84111.
### §1881c. Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated for each of fiscal years 2017 through 2028 such sums as may be necessary to carry out this subchapter, to be derived from amounts appropriated in each such fiscal year for the operation of the Architect of the Capitol, except that the aggregate amount appropriated to carry out this subchapter for all such fiscal years may not exceed $40,000.

(Pub. L. 114–156, §5, May 16, 2016, 130 Stat. 392; Pub. L. 117–328, div. I, title I, §131, Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 4929.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2022—Pub. L. 117–328 substituted "through 2028" for "through 2022".
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, William Keiper, certify that:1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Hypercom Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonableassurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accountingprinciples;c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;andd) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal year that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: March 16, 2006By: /s/ William Keiper
#### Michael J. KEESHAN, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.; Michael Rizk; Gregg Smith, Michael Keeshan, Appellant.

No. 01-1991.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued March 22, 2002.

Decided May 28, 2002.

Dolores M. Troiani, (Argued), Paoli, PA, for Appellant.

Judith E. Harris, (Argued), Morgan, Lewis & Boekius, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellee.

Before NYGAARD, ROTH, and AMBRO, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

Appellant, Michael Keeshan, appeals from an order of the District Court which granted summary judgment in favor of The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. Appellant alleges as error the issues listed in paragraph I, taken from his brief. Because we conclude that the District Court did not err, we will affirm.

I.

The allegations of error asserted by Appellant are as follows:

> 1. Did the trial court err in failing to consider Appellant’s evidence pretext?

> 2. Did the trial court err in failing to consider the evidence in the most favorable to the non-moving party?

> 3. Did the trial court err in granting the motion as to Appellant’s and PHRA claims?

> 4. Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment as to Appellant’s FMLA claim?

> 5. Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment as to Appellant’s defamation claim?

*52II.

The facts and procedural history of this case are well known to the parties and the Court, and it is not necessary that we restate them here. The Court has heard oral argument on the issues presented to us in this appeal. There are three reasons why we write an opinion of the court: to instruct the District Court, to educate and inform the attorneys and parties, and to explain our decision. None of these reasons are presented here. We use a notprecedential opinion in eases such as this, in which a precedential opinion is rendered unnecessary because the opinion has no institutional or precedential value. See United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Internal Operating Procedure (I.O.P.) 5.2. In this case, we have concluded that neither a full memorandum explanation nor a precedential opinion is indicated because of the very extensive and thorough opinion filed by Judge Robert F. Kelly of the District Court. Judge Kelly’s opinion adequately explains and fully supports its order and refutes the Appellant’s allegations of error. Hence, we believe it wholly unnecessary to further opine, or offer additional explanations and reasons to those given by the District Court, why we will affirm. It is a sufficient explanation to say that, essentially for the reasons given by the District Court in its opinion dated the 27th day of March, 2001, we will affirm.

III.

In sum, for the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order of the District Court dated March 27, 2001 and entered on March 28, 2001.

TO THE CLERK:

Please file the foregoing opinion.