alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §4595. Payment for unaccrued leave

#### (a) In general

The Financial Clerk of the Senate is authorized to accept from an individual whose pay is disbursed by the Secretary of 1 Senate a payment representing pay for any period of unaccrued annual leave used by that individual, as certified by the head of the employing office of the individual making the payment.

#### (b) Withholding

The Financial Clerk of the Senate is authorized to withhold the amount referred to in subsection (a) from any amount which is disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate and which is due to or on behalf of the individual described in subsection (a).

#### (c) Deposit

Any payment accepted under this section shall be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.

#### (d) "Head of the employing office" defined

As used in this section, the term "head of the employing office" means any person with the final authority to appoint, hire, discharge, and set the terms, conditions, or privileges of the employment of an individual whose pay is disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate.

#### (e) Applicability

This section shall apply to fiscal year 1996 and each fiscal year thereafter.

(Pub. L. 104–197, title I, §9, Sept. 16, 1996, 110 Stat. 2398.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 60p of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

Section is from the Congressional Operations Appropriations Act, 1997, which is title I of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1997.

1 So in original. Probably should be followed by "the".
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                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 on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June
30, 2004, of Synagro Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J. Paul
Withrow, certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company and that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                                    /s/ J. Paul Withrow
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    J. Paul Withrow

                                    March 21, 2005
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.906 Certification not required. ( a ) *General.* Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this section, an importer will not be required to submit a copy of a certification under § 10.904 of this subpart for: ( 1 ) A non-commercial importation of a good; or
( 2 ) A commercial importation for which the value of the originating goods does not exceed U.S. $2,500.
( b ) *Exception.* If the Center director determines that an importation described in paragraph (a) of this section is part of a series of importations carried out or planned for the purpose of evading compliance with the certification requirements of § 10.904 of this subpart, the Center director will notify the importer that for that importation the importer must submit a copy of the certification. The importer must submit such a copy within 30 days from the date of the notice. Failure to timely submit a copy of the certification will result in denial of the claim for preferential tariff treatment.
[76 FR 68072, Nov. 3, 2011, as amended by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93014, Dec. 20, 2016]
#### Max Broome, Appellant, v. Golda V. Broome, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously modified by dismissing the first counterclaim and as so modified affirmed, with costs to the respondent. No opinion. Settle order on notice. Present — Peek, P. J., Cohn, Callahan and Van Voorhis, JJ.
§ 177.7 Situations in which no ruling will be issued. ( a ) *Generally.* No ruling letter will be issued in response to a request for a ruling which fails to comply with the provisions of this part. Moreover, no ruling letter will be issued with regard to transactions or questions which are essentially hypothetical in nature or in any instance in which it appears contrary to the sound administration of the Customs and related laws to do so. No ruling letter will be issued in regard to a completed transaction.
( b ) *Pending litigation in the United States Court of International Trade.* No ruling letter will be issued with respect to any issue which is pending before the United States Court of International Trade, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or any court of appeal therefrom. Litigation before any other court will not preclude the issuance of a ruling letter, provided neither the Customs Service nor any of its officers or agents is named as a defendant.
[T.D. 75-186, 40 FR 31929, July 30, 1975, as amended by T.D. 85-90, 50 FR 21430, May 24, 1985]
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-98-09 January 27, 1998

Contact: Diane Screnci (610/337-5330) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC STAFF RATES SEABROOK “GOOD” IN OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE AND

ENGINEERING AND “SUPERIOR” IN PLANT SUPPORT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has rated performance at the

Seabrook nuclear power plant as “good” in operations, engineering and maintenance

and “superior” in plant support, the four areas of review in the NRC’s latest Systematic

Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP). Located in Portsmouth, New

Hampshire, the plant is operated by North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation.

The NRC issues SALP reports for the nation’s commercial nuclear power plants

about once every 18 months. Three levels of ratings are used in the reports: Category

1 (“superior”), Category 2 (“good”) and Category 3 (“acceptable”).

The latest Seabrook SALP covers the period from May 5, 1996 through

December 6, 1997.

In a letter to the utility, NRC Region I Administrator Hubert J. Miller wrote that

while the plant’s overall performance was good , “performance declined from the

superior levels observed during the previous period.” In the previous SALP, operations

and engineering had both been rated “superior”.

He added, “Senior management was involved in plant activities and focused on

problem identification; however some problems were noted with root cause analysis

and corrective actions.” Equipment availability during the assessment period was

good, Mr. Miller said, adding that the staff noted that operators and engineering

personnel did not “aggressively pursue resolution of some degraded conditions on

equipment important to safety.”

The NRC staff will meet with utility officials at 10:00 a.m., on February 4 to

discuss the SALP. The meeting, which is open to the public for observation, will be

held at the Science and Nature Center at Seabrook Station.

Note: SALP reports are available on the NRC's Internet web site at

http://www.nrc.gov/OPA.

#
```

[106th Congress Public Law 316]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ316.106]

[[Page 114 STAT. 1276]]

Public Law 106-316
106th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To reauthorize the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act 
            of 1994. <<NOTE: Oct. 19, 2000 -  [H.R. 2496]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF JUNIOR DUCK STAMP CONSERVATION AND DESIGN 
            PROGRAM ACT OF 1994.

    Section 5 of the Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program 
Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 719c) is amended by striking ``for each of the 
fiscal years 1995 through 2000'' and inserting ``for each of the fiscal 
years 2001 through 2005''.

SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF PROGRAM TO INSULAR AREAS.

    The Junior Duck Stamp Conservation and Design Program Act of 1994 is 
amended--
            (1) in section 2(c) (16 U.S.C. 719(c)) by striking ``50 
        States'' each place it appears and inserting ``States'';
            (2) by redesignating section 5 (16 U.S.C. 719c), as amended 
        by section 1 of this Act, as section 6; and
            (3) by inserting after section 4 the following:

``SEC. 5. <<NOTE: 16 USC 719b-1.>> DEFINITION OF STATE.

    ``For the purposes of this Act, the term `State' includes the 
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth 
of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin 
Islands, and any other territory or possession of the United States.''.

    Approved October 19, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 2496:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 106-390 (Comm. on Resources).
SENATE REPORTS: No. 106-457 (Comm. on Environment and Public Works).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 145 (1999):
                                    Oct. 26, considered and passed 
                                        House.
                                                        Vol. 146 (2000):
                                    Oct. 5, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.

                                  <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.811 Textile or apparel goods. ( a ) *De minimis* — ( 1 ) *General.* Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a textile or apparel good that is not an originating good under the BFTA because certain fibers or yarns used in the production of the component of the good that determines the tariff classification of the good do not undergo an applicable change in tariff classification set out in General Note 30(h), HTSUS, will be considered to be an originating good if the total weight of all such fibers or yarns is not more than seven percent of the total weight of that component.
( 2 ) *Exception.* A textile or apparel good containing elastomeric yarns in the component of the good that determines the tariff classification of the good will be considered to be an originating good only if such yarns are wholly formed in the territory of a Party.
( b ) *Textile or apparel goods put up in sets.* Notwithstanding the specific rules specified in General Note 30(h), HTSUS, textile or apparel goods classifiable as goods put up in sets for retail sale as provided for in General Rule of Interpretation 3, HTSUS, will not be considered to be originating goods under the BFTA unless each of the goods in the set is an originating good or the total value of the non-originating goods in the set does not exceed ten percent of the appraised value of the set.
[CBP Dec. 07-81, 72 FR 58515, Oct. 16, 2007, as amended at CBP Dec. 10-29, 75 FR 52450, Aug. 26, 2010]
### §133. Joint Committee during recess of Congress

The portion of the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library on the part of the Senate remaining in office as Senators shall during the recess of Congress exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred by law upon the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library.

(Mar. 3, 1883, ch. 141, §2, 22 Stat. 592; Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 753, title II, §223, 60 Stat. 838.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1946—Act Aug. 2, 1946, changed composition of Joint Committee. See section 132b of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of 1946 Amendment

Amendment by act Aug. 2, 1946, effective Jan. 3, 1947, see section 245 of that act, set out as a note under section 4301 of this title.
§ 128.1 Definitions. For the purpose of this part the following definitions shall apply: ( a ) *Express consignment operator or carrier.* An “express consignment operator or carrier” is an entity operating in any mode or intermodally moving cargo by special express commercial service under closely integrated administrative control. Its services are offered to the public under advertised, reliable timely delivery on a door-to-door basis. An express consignment operator assumes liability to Customs for the articles in the same manner as if it is the sole carrier.
( b ) *Cargo.* “Cargo” means any and all shipments imported into the Customs territory of the United States by an express consignment operator or carrier whether manifested, accompanied, or unaccompanied.
( c ) *Courier shipment.* A “courier shipment” is an accompanied express consignment shipment.
( d ) *Hub.* A “hub” is a separate, unique, single purpose facility normally operating outside of Customs operating hours approved by the port director for entry filing, examination, and release of express consignment shipments.
( e ) *Express consignment carrier facility.* An “express consignment carrier facility” is a separate or shared specialized facility approved by the port director solely for the examination and release of express consignment shipments.
( f ) *Closely integrated administrative control.* The term “closely integrated administrative control” means operations must be sufficiently integrated at both ends of the service (i.e., pick-up and delivery) so that the express consignment company can exercise a high degree of control over the shipments, particularly in regard to the reliability of information supplied for Customs purposes. Such control would be indicated by substantial common ownership between the local company and the foreign affiliate and/or by a very close contractual relationship between the local company and its foreign affiliate(s) (*e.g.,* a franchise arrangement).
( g ) *Reimbursable.* “Reimbursable” means all normal costs incurred at an express consignment operator's hub or an express consignment carrier facility that are required to be reimbursed to the Government.
### §1928. Repealed. Pub. L. 111–145, §2(a)(4)(B)(i), Mar. 4, 2010, 124 Stat. 50

Section, R.S. §1823; Mar. 3, 1921, ch. 124, §1, 41 Stat. 1291, related to suspension of members of the force.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was classified to section 208 of former Title 40, prior to the enactment of Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works, by Pub. L. 107–217, §1, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1062.

R.S. §1823 derived from acts Mar. 3, 1873, ch. 226, 17 Stat. 488; June 20, 1874, ch. 328, 18 Stat. 86; Mar. 3, 1875, ch. 129, 18 Stat. 345.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

LUIS MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v.

IMPERIAL BRANDS PLC, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:20-cv-23287-DPG

DEFENDANT IMPERIAL BRANDS PLC’S SECOND STATUS REPORT

Defendant Imperial Brands plc (“Imperial”) respectfully submits this status report pursuant 

to the Court’s September 23, 2020 Order [D.E. 49] granting Imperial’s motion for a limited stay 

of proceedings and directing Imperial to submit monthly status reports on its application to the 

European Commission (the “Commission”) for authorization to defend this lawsuit or, at a 

minimum, to file and litigate a motion to dismiss. By way of update, Imperial states as follows:

1. As Imperial previously advised the Court [D.E. 14, D.E. 15-1], on August 27, 2020, 

Imperial submitted an application to the Commission under Article 5 paragraph 2 of Council 

Regulation (EC) No. 2271/96, Protecting Against the Effects of the Extra-Territorial Application 

of Legislation Adopted by a Third County, and Actions Based Thereon or Resulting Therefrom, 

1996 O.J. (L. 309) 1 (EC) (“Regulation 2271/96”), for authorization to defend this lawsuit or, at a 

minimum, authorization in the first instance to file and litigate a motion to dismiss (the 

“Application”).

2. The Commission has acknowledged receipt of Imperial’s Application, and has 

cautioned Imperial that unless and until the Commission provides authorization Imperial is 

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

prohibited from appearing before this Court pursuant to the summons in this action under Title III 

of the Helms-Burton Act.

3. Imperial filed its first status report on October 23, 2020. Imperial requested that the 

Commission provide Imperial a further update on the status of Imperial’s application ahead of the 

November 23, 2020 due date for the second status report to the Court. On November 19, 2020, the 

Commission informed Imperial that the Commission continues to assess Imperial’s application 

including by consulting extensively internally and with European Union Member States’ 

authorities. The Commission informed Imperial that, despite the challenges caused by the 

pandemic, it is doing its utmost to ensure that a decision on Imperial’s application is made in due 

course.

Dated: November 23, 2020

Miami, Florida

 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Mark F. Raymond

NELSON MULLINS BROAD AND CASSEL

Mark F. Raymond

Mark.Raymond@nelsonmullins.com

Jonathan Etra

Jonathan.Etra@nelsonmullins.com

2 South Biscayne Blvd., 21st Floor 

Miami, FL 33131 

Telephone: 305-373-9400

ALLEN & OVERY LLP

Andrew Rhys Davies (admitted pro hac vice)

andrewrhys.davies@allenovery.com

Justin L. Ormand (admitted pro hac vice)

justin.ormand@allenovery.com

1221 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10020

Telephone: 212-610-6300

 Attorneys for Defendant Imperial Brands plc

Case 1:20-cv-23287-DPG Document 52 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/23/2020 Page 2 of 2
#### Joseph Gallin v. Lurie Auto Co., Inc.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Untermyer, Dore and Callahan, JJ.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Region II

101 Marietta Street, N.W.

Suite 2900

Atlanta, GA 30323

No: II-96-81 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark (404) 331-5503 (Friday, September

27, 1996)

Roger Hannah (404) 331-7878

NRC EVALUATION LISTS SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE AT TURKEY POINT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has issued a

Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) report on

Florida Power & Light Company's Turkey Point nuclear power plant,

located near Homestead, Florida, indicating superior performance

for the second time in a row.

The facility was evaluated by the NRC for a period from August

28, 1994, through August 17, 1996, and received Category 1, or

superior, ratings in the areas of Plant Operations, Engineering,

Maintenance and Plant Support.

Stewart D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator of the NRC's

southeastern area, said in a letter to the company that the

continued high level of performance resulted from what he described

as "dedication to continuous improvement and teamwork of all those

associated with operation of the facility."

The plant received all Category 1 (superior) ratings in the

same categories during the last NRC assessment of performance.

NRC officials will meet with FP&L managers at Turkey Point on

October 10 at 10:00 a.m. (edt) to discuss details of the contents

of the report. The meeting will be open to observation by the

public. NRC officials will be available at its conclusion to

answer questions from interested observers.

#
****EXHIBIT 31.1****

**Rule 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Fred G. Kowal, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Warwick Community Bancorp, Inc. (the "Registrant");

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects theconsolidated financial condition, results of operations 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 and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures ( as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the Registrant and have:

> a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

> 
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

> 
c) disclosed in this report any changes in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of the Company's annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

5. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theRegistrant's auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

> 
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: March 15, 2004

/s/  Fred G. KowalFred G. KowalChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
#### § 175.23 Notice of desire to contest decision.

If the petitioner is dissatisfied with the decision of the Commissioner that the appraised value, classification, or rate of duty is correct for the merchandise which was the subject of the petition, in accordance with section 516, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1516) he may file with the Commissioner of Customs not later than 30 days after the date of the decision a notice that he desires to contest the appraised value of, classification of, or rate of duty assessed upon the imported merchandise. Such notice shall designate the port or ports at which such merchandise is being imported into the United States, and at which the petitioner desires to protest.