alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1203. Procedures in connection with prohibited transactions

#### (a) Notification to Secretary of Labor; opportunity to comment on imposition of tax under section 4975 of title 26; waiver; requests for investigations

Unless the Secretary of the Treasury finds that the collection of a tax is in jeopardy, in carrying out the provisions of section 4975 of title 26 (relating to tax on prohibited transactions) the Secretary of the Treasury shall, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (h) of such section, notify the Secretary of Labor before sending a notice of deficiency with respect to the tax imposed by subsection (a) or (b) of such section, and, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (h) of such section, afford the Secretary an opportunity to comment on the imposition of the tax in any case. The Secretary of the Treasury shall have authority to waive the imposition of the tax imposed under section 4975(b) in appropriate cases. Upon receiving a written request from the Secretary of Labor or from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the Secretary of the Treasury shall cause an investigation to be carried out with respect to whether the tax imposed by section 4975 of title 26 should be applied to any person referred to in the request.

#### (b) Consultation

The Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Labor shall consult with each other from time to time with respect to the provisions of section 4975 of title 26 (relating to tax on prohibited transactions) and with respect to the provisions of subchapter I of this chapter relating to prohibited transactions and exemptions therefrom in order to coordinate the rules applicable under such standards.

#### (c) Transmission of information to Secretary of the Treasury

Whenever the Secretary of Labor obtains information indicating that a party-in-interest or disqualified person is violating section 1106 of this title, he shall transmit such information to the Secretary of the Treasury.

(Pub. L. 93–406, title III, §3003, Sept. 2, 1974, 88 Stat. 998; Pub. L. 101–239, title VII, §7891(a)(1), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2445.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1989—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 101–239 substituted "Internal Revenue Code of 1986" for "Internal Revenue Code of 1954", which for purposes of codification was translated as "title 26" thus requiring no change in text.

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

#### Effective Date of 1989 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 101–239 effective, except as otherwise provided, as if included in the provision of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99–514, to which such amendment relates, see section 7891(f) of Pub. L. 101–239, set out as a note under section 1002 of this title.
### §1432. Political affiliation and place of residence

#### (a) In general

It shall not be a violation of any provision of section 1311 of this title to consider the—

(1) party affiliation;

(2) domicile; or

(3) political compatibility with the employing office;

of an employee referred to in subsection (b) with respect to employment decisions.

#### (b) "Employee" defined

For purposes of subsection (a), the term "employee" means—

(1) an employee on the staff of the leadership of the House of Representatives or the leadership of the Senate;

(2) an employee on the staff of a committee or subcommittee of—

(A) the House of Representatives;

(B) the Senate; or

(C) a joint committee of the Congress;

(3) an employee on the staff of a Member of the House of Representatives or on the staff of a Senator;

(4) an officer of the House of Representatives or the Senate or a congressional employee who is elected by the House of Representatives or Senate or is appointed by a Member of the House of Representatives or by a Senator (in addition an employee described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3)); or

(5) an applicant for a position that is to be occupied by an individual described in any of paragraphs (1) through (4).

(Pub. L. 104–1, title V, §502, Jan. 23, 1995, 109 Stat. 39.)
Exhibit
      32.2








**ESCALA
      GROUP, INC.**


**SARBANES-OXLEY
      ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION**





In
      connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Escala Group, Inc. for
      the
      period ended December 31, 2005, I, Larry Crawford, Executive Vice President
      and
      Chief Financial Officer of Escala Group, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:




1.
      this
      Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the
      requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and




2.
      the
      information contained in this Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2005
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operations of Escala Group, Inc.







Dated:  February
      8, 2006


/s/ Larry
      Crawford


Larry
      Crawford, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 31.1

SHOE CARNIVAL, INC.CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

|I, Mark L. Lemond, certify that:
|--------------------------------
|                                
|1.                              
|                                
|2.                              
|                                
|3.                              
|                                
|4.                              
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                
|5.                              
|                                
|                                
|                                
|                                

|Date: | September 13, 2007 | By:/s/ Mark L. Lemond   | 
|----- | ------------------ | ----------------------- | 
|      |                    | Mark L. Lemond          | 
|      |                    | President and           | 
|      |                    | Chief Executive Officer | 

---
§ 206.62 Available assistance. In any emergency declaration, the Regional Administrator or Administrator may provide assistance, as follows: ( a ) Direct any Federal agency, with or without reimbursement, to utilize its authorities and the resources granted to it under Federal law (including personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities, and managerial, technical and advisory services) in support of State and local emergency assistance efforts to save lives, protect property and public health and safety, and lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe;
( b ) Coordinate all disaster relief assistance (including voluntary assistance) provided by Federal agencies, private organizations, and State and local governments;
( c ) Provide technical and advisory assistance to affected State and local governments for: ( 1 ) The performance of essential community services;
( 2 ) Issuance of warnings of risks or hazards;
( 3 ) Public health and safety information, including dissemination of such information;
( 4 ) Provision of health and safety measures; and
( 5 ) Management, control, and reduction of immediate threats to public health and safety;
( d ) Provide emergency assistance under the Stafford Act through Federal agencies;
( e ) Remove debris in accordance with the terms and conditions of section 407 of the Stafford Act;
( f ) Provide assistance in accordance with section 408 of the Stafford Act; and
( g ) Assist State and local governments in the distribution of medicine, food, and other consumable supplies, and emergency assistance.
[55 FR 2296, Jan. 23, 1990, as amended at 67 FR 61460, Sept. 30, 2002]
###### Editorial Note on Part 10

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 10.590 Right to make post-importation claim and refund duties.

Notwithstanding any other available remedy, where a good would have qualified as an originating good when it was imported into the United States but no claim for preferential tariff treatment was made, the importer of that good may file a claim for a refund of any excess duties at any time within one year after the date of importation of the good in accordance with the procedures set forth in § 10.591 of this subpart. Subject to the provisions of § 10.588 of this subpart, CBP may refund any excess duties by liquidation or reliquidation of the entry covering the good in accordance with § 10.592(c) of this subpart.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 02485

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 02485\02485_Checklist_102610_version34.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

02485\02485_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

02485\02485_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 02485\02485_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02485\02485_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 02485\02485_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

02485\Certification Statement_02485.pdf Plant certification statement

02485\Supporting Documentation\Power Plant Layout Picture APR09.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket. 

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database .
#### § 114.103 Who may file a claim?

(a) If a claim is based on factors listed in the first column, then it may be presented by persons listed in the second column.

| Claim factors | Claim presenters |
| --- | --- |
| Injury to or loss of property | The owner of the property, his or her duly authorized agent, or legal representative. |
| Personal injury | The injured person, his or her duly authorized agent, or legal representative. |
| Death | The executor, administrator, or legal representative of the decedent's estate, or any other person entitled to assert the claim under applicable state law. |
| Loss wholly compensated by an insurer with rights as a subrogee | The parties individually, as their interests appear, or jointly. |

(b) An agent or legal representative may present your claim in your name, but must sign the claim, state his or her title or legal capacity, and include documentation of authority to present the claim on your behalf.
#### § 103.32 Information concerning fines, penalties, and forfeitures cases.

Except as otherwise provided in these regulations or in other directives (including those published as Treasury Decisions or CBP Decisions), port directors, Center directors, and other CBP officers must refrain from disclosing facts concerning seizures, investigations, and other pending cases until CBP action is completed. After the penalty proceeding is closed by payment of the claim amount, payment of a mitigated amount, or judicial action, the identity of the violator, the section of the law violated, the amount of penalty assessed, loss of revenue, mitigated amount (if applicable), and the amount of money paid may be disclosed to the public by the appropriate port director. Public disclosure of any other item of information concerning such cases, whether open or closed, must only be made in conformance with the procedures provided in 6 CFR 5.3.

[T.D. 81-168, 46 FR 32565, June 24, 1981. Redesignated by T.D. 96-36, 61 FR 19838, May 3, 1996, as amended by CBP Dec. 15-16, 80 FR 71693, Nov. 17, 2015; CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93017, Dec. 20, 2016]
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.62a Blanket withdrawals for certain merchandise. ( a ) *Generally.* Under this section, a blanket withdrawal on Customs Form 7501, or its electronic equivalent, may be filed for all or part of any merchandise withdrawn from warehouse except fuel oil covered under § 10.62, for use on qualified vessels. Such a withdrawal shall be made only for lading on board vessels at the port where the warehouse is located. The procedure for the blanket withdrawal and partial releases after the initial release are the same as those provided in § 19.6(d) of this chapter, except as noted in paragraph (b).
( b ) *Partial release.* A partial release on Customs Form 7501, or its electronic equivalent, in duplicate, or in triplicate if an extra copy is required by the port director, shall be presented to the warehouse proprietor and placed in the proprietor's permit file folder under the partial release procedure set forth in § 19.6(d) of this chapter, as merchandise is needed for delivery to a using vessel. The original of the partial release document shall accompany the merchandise for delivery to the Customs officer who will supervise lading, or if a Customs officer does not physically supervise lading, to the master of the vessel. The original shall be returned to the proprietor for record purposes after the Customs officer or master of the vessel, as appropriate, has certified lading of the goods described in the document.
[T.D. 82-204, 47 FR 49367, Nov. 1, 1982, as amended by T.D. 95-81, 60 FR 52295, Oct. 6, 1995; CBP Dec. 15-14, 80 FR 61284, Oct. 13, 2015]
EXHIBIT 32.2: CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
   1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

      In connection with the accompanying Quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of
Magna-Lab, Inc. for the quarter ended May 31, 2007, the undersigned hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

      (1)   such Quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended May 31,
            2007 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 such Quarterly report on Form 10-QSB
            for the quarter ended May 31, 2007 fairly presents, in all material
            respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
            Magna-Lab, Inc.


July 12, 2007         /s/ Kenneth C. Riscica
                      ----------------------
                      Name: Kenneth C. Riscica
                      Title: Treasurer & Secretary (principal financial officer)
#### FARRELL, Appellant, v. MYTYS et al, Respondents.

(196 N. W. 495.)

(File No. 5429.

Opinion filed December 21, 1923.)

Appeal and Error — Judgments—Opening or Vacating — Relief from Default Judgment Held Not Precluded.

That an affidavit of merits and a proposed answer submitted with a motion - to vacate a default judgment were n,ot served upon ■ plaintiff’s attorneys cannot b© urged on appeal to defeat relief where plaintiff appeared at the hearing of the motion, and did not resist it on that ground. .

Appeal from. Circuit Court, Minnehaha 'County; H'on. L. L. FlEEGER, Judge.

Action by Fay Farrell against Adam Mytys and another. From an order vacating a default judgment for plaintiff, plaintiff appeals.

Order ’ affirmed.

*Krause & Krause,*of ‘Dell Rapids, for Appellant.

Appellant cited: Larson v. Rumley Co., 35 S. D. 542, 153 N. W. 301; Des Moines, etc., Inc. Association v. 'Clute, 35 S. D. 154, P51 N. W. 281; Judd v. Patton, 13 G. D. 648-55; Union Savings Assn. v. Summers, 40 IS. D. 177; 166 N. W. 638; Mc-Harg v. 'Finance Corporation, 44 S. D1. 144, 152; 182 N. W. 705; Stevens v. Faus, 20 S. D. 367, 371. '

GATES, J.

Defendants were in default, relying upon abortive proceedings to secure a change of venue. Judgment was entered for plaintiff by default. Defendants moved to vacate the judgment and for leave to answer. An affidavit Of merits and a proposed answer were made. It is urged that these were not served on plaintiff’s attorneys, but plaintiff appeared at the hearing of the’motion, and did not resist the motion on that ground. The only tangible objections made to the granting of the motion were that there was an insufficient showing of merits, and that the answer did not disclose a defense. The trial court found that the judgment was rendered through mistake, and that the answer stated a valid defense, and entered an order vacating the judgment. Plaintiff appeals.

The afHdavit of merits might not have been sufficient under former circuit court rules 9, 10, and ri, in effect November 15, 1909 (22 S. D., preliminary page 4), but was sufficient under *111present trial courts rule io (40 S. D., preliminary page 20).

Appellant has not argued the point that the answer did not state a defense.

The order appealed from is affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 196 N. W. 495. See, Headnote, American Key-Numbered Digest, Appeal and error, Key-No. 232(1), 3 C. J. Secs. 640, 800.
----

Exhibit 13.1 

Telesystem International Wireless Inc. 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002           (18 U.S.C. 1350) 

In connection with the Annual Report of TelesystemInternational Wireless Inc., a Canadian corporation (the "Company"), on Form20-F for the year ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the "Report"), Bruno Ducharme, President and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company and André Gauthier, Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuantto § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to hisknowledge: 

(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 materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 

Date: May 19, 2004 

| *(signed)*                                    |
|-----------------------------------------------|
|                                          |
| Bruno Ducharme                                |
| President and Chief Executive    Officer      |
| (Principal Executive Officer)                 |
|                                          |
|                                          |
| Date: May 19, 2004                            |
|                                          |
| *(signed)*                                    |
|                                          |
| André Gauthier                            |
| Vice President and Chief    Financial Officer |
| (Principal Financial Officer)                 |

 

----
#### Rosina Constantino, as Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. Watson Contracting Company, Appellant, Impleaded with Another.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 13th day of May, 1913, upon a verdict, and also from an order entered on the 6th day of June, 1913, denying a motion for a new trial.

Per Curiam:

There was no evidence to justify the jury in finding that

the defendant was guilty of negligence. The judgment and order appealed from are, therefore, reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed. Present—Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ. Judgment and order reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed. Order to be settled on notice.
§ 131.500 Oversight of the WBC program. ( a ) The AA/OWBO will monitor the WBC's performance and its ongoing operations under the cooperative agreement to determine if the WBC is making effective and efficient use of program funds, in compliance with applicable law and other requirements, for the benefit of the small business community.
( b ) The AA/OWBO may revoke delegated authority of oversight responsibilities at any time it is deemed necessary and will notify the recipient organization of such a change in a timely manner.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-23103-CIV-COOKE/GOODMAN

MARCO TASSARA,

Plaintiff,

v.

KILOL KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of 

Social Security,

Defendant. 

__________________________________/ 

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS MATTER is before me upon the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 

the Honorable Jonathan Goodman, U.S. Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 27), regarding the 

Parties’ Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 23 and 24. 

In his R&R, Judge Goodman recommends that I: 1) grant Plaintiff’s Summary 

Judgment Motion; 2) deny Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion; 3) reverse the ALJ's 

decision; and 4) and remand this case for further proceedings pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), 

with instructions to the ALJ to: (a) address the inconsistency between her determination of 

a marked limitation in interacting with others and her RFC finding permitting frequent 

interaction with supervisors, coworkers, and the public; (b) further address, if the ALJ so 

chooses, the symptoms caused by Plaintiff’s mental impairments; (c) address, if the ALJ so 

chooses, the views of the State agency psychological consultants in a hypothetical to the VE 

or in her substantive discussion; and (d) resolve the three-day versus thirty-day discrepancy 

in the hearing transcript by either including a substantive discussion or by posing a new 

hypothetical to the VE. 

The parties have not filed Objections to the R&R, and the time to do so has passed. I 

have reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion, the briefing and accompanying exhibits, Judge

Goodman’s R&R, the record, and the relevant legal authorities. Having done so, I find 

Judge Goodman’s R&R to be clear, cogent, and compelling. 

Case 1:20-cv-23103-MGC Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2022 Page 1 of 2
2

Accordingly, Judge Goodman’s R&R (ECF No. 27) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED

as the Order of this Court. It is therefore ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 1) 

Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Motion is GRANTED; 2) Defendant’s Summary Judgment 

Motion is DENIED; 3) the ALJ's decision is REVERSED; and 4) this matter is 

REMANDED, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), for the ALJ to: (a) address the inconsistency 

between her determination of a marked limitation in interacting with others and her RFC 

finding permitting frequent interaction with supervisors, coworkers, and the public; (b) 

further address, if the ALJ so chooses, the symptoms caused by Plaintiff’s mental 

impairments; (c) address, if the ALJ so chooses, the views of the State agency psychological 

consultants in a hypothetical to the VE or in her substantive discussion; and (d) resolve the 

three-day versus thirty-day discrepancy in the hearing transcript by either including a 

substantive discussion or by posing a new hypothetical to the VE. 

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 28th day of April 

2022. 

Copies furnished to: 

Jonathan Goodman, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Counsel of record

Case 1:20-cv-23103-MGC Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/28/2022 Page 2 of 2