alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §6568. Banking and financial transactions of Secretary of Senate

#### (a) Reimbursement of banks for costs of clearing items for Senate

The Secretary of the Senate is authorized to reimburse any bank which clears items for the United States Senate for the costs incurred therein. Such reimbursements shall be made from the contingent fund of the Senate.

#### (b) Check cashing regulations for Disbursing Office of Senate

The Secretary of the Senate is authorized to prescribe such regulations as he deems necessary to govern the cashing of personal checks by the Disbursing Office of the Senate.

#### (c) Amounts withheld from disbursements for employee indebtedness

Whenever an employee whose compensation is disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate becomes indebted to the Senate and such employee fails to pay such indebtedness, the Secretary of the Senate is authorized to withhold the amount of the indebtedness from any amount which is disbursed by him and which is due to, or on behalf of, such employee. Whenever an amount is withheld under this section, the appropriate account shall be credited in an amount equal to the amount so withheld.

(Pub. L. 94–440, title I, §104, Oct. 1, 1976, 90 Stat. 1443.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 60c–2a of this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

Section is from the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 1977.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gloria A. McCUTCHEON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-6086.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 16, 2002.

Decided May 23, 2002.

Gloria A. McCutcheon, Appellant Pro Se. William Earl Day, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*97PER CURIAM.

Gloria A. McCutcheon appeals the district court’s order denying her request for an extension of time to file a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See United States v. McCutcheon,*No. CR-97-866 (D.S.C. Dec. 17, 2001). 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.

*DISMISSED.*
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT

TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies
that this periodic report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of BUCA, Inc.

Date: March 11, 2008



/s/ John T. BettinJohn T. BettinChief Executive Officer and President/s/ Dennis J. GoetzDennis J. GoetzChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
### §72a–1h. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 72a–1h was editorially reclassified as section 4722 of this title.
### SUBCHAPTER VII—SODIUM
Editorial Note on Part 174
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 174 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93025, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 174.26 Review of protest after application for further review. ( a ) *Protest allowed.* If upon examination of a protest for which an application for further review was filed the Center director is satisfied that the claim is valid, he shall allow the protest.
( b ) *Other protests.* If upon examination of a protest for which an application for further review was filed the Center director decides that the protest in his judgment should be denied in whole or in part, the Center director will forward the application together with the protest and appropriate documents to be reviewed as follows: ( 1 ) A protest shall be reviewed by the Commissioner of Customs or his designee under Customs Delegation Order No. 1 (Revision 1), T.D. 69-126 (34 FR 8208), as amended from time to time, if the protest and application for review raise an issue involving either: ( i ) Lack of uniformity of treatment;
( ii ) The existence of an established and uniform practice;
( iii ) The interpretation of a court decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Customs or his designee; or
( iv ) Questions which have not been the subject of a Headquarters, U.S. Customs Service ruling or court decision.
( 2 ) All other protests shall be reviewed by a designee of the Center director who did not participate directly in the decision which is the subject of the protest.
§ 354.6 Billing and payment of fees. ( a ) *Electronic billing and payment.* We will deposit all funds collected under this part to the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Fund as offsetting collections, which will be available for our REP Program. The Department of the Treasury revisions to section 8025.30 of publication I-TFM 6-8000 require Federal agencies to collect funds by electronic funds transfer when such collection is cost-effective, practicable, and consistent with current statutory authority. Working with the Department of the Treasury we now provide for payment of bills by electronic transfers through Automated Clearing House (ACH) credit payments.
( b ) We will send bills that are based on the assessment methodology set out in § 354.4 to licensees to recover the full amount of the funds that we budget to provide REP Program services. Licensees that have more than one site will receive consolidated bills. We will forward one bill to each licensee during the first quarter of the fiscal year, with payment due within 30 days. If we exceed our original budget for the fiscal year and need to make minor adjustments, the adjustment will appear in the bill for the next fiscal year.
#### § 191.28 Person entitled to claim drawback.

The exporter (or destroyer) shall be entitled to claim drawback, unless the exporter (or destroyer), by means of a certification, assigns the right to claim drawback to the manufacturer, producer, importer, or intermediate party. Such certification shall also affirm that the exporter (or destroyer) has not and will not itself claim drawback or assign the right to claim drawback on the particular exportation or destruction to any other party. The certification provided for under this section may be a blanket certification for a stated period. Drawback is paid to the claimant, who may be the manufacturer, producer, intermediate party, importer, or exporter (destroyer).
§ 146.68 Transfer for transportation or exportation; estimated production. ( a ) *Weekly permit.* The port director may allow the person making entry for merchandise provided for in § 146.63(c) to file an application for a weekly permit to enter and release merchandise during a calendar week for exportation, transportation, or transportation and exportation. The application will be made by filing an in-bond application pursuant to part 18 of this chapter. The in-bond application must provide invoice or schedule information like that required in § 146.63(c)(1). If actual transfers will exceed the estimate for the week, the person with the right to make entry must file a supplemental in-bond application to cover the additional merchandise to be transferred from the subzone or zone site. No merchandise covered by the weekly permit may be transferred from the zone before approval of the application by the port director.
( b ) *Individual entries.* After approval of the application for a weekly permit by the port director, the person making entry will be authorized to file individual in-bond applications for exportation, transportation, or transportation and exportation of the merchandise covered by permit. Upon transfer of the merchandise, the carrier must update the in-bond record via a CBP-approved EDI system to ensure its assumption of liability under the carrier's or cartman's bond. CBP will consider the time of entry to be when the removing carrier updates the in-bond record.
( c ) *Statement of merchandise entered.* The person making entry for merchandise under an approved weekly permit must file with the port director, by the close of business on the second business day of the week following the week designated on the permit, a statement of the merchandise entered under that permit. The statement must list each in-bond application by its unique IT number, and must provide a reconciliation of the quantities on the weekly permit with the manifested quantities on the individual in-bond applications submitted to CBP, as well as an explanation of any discrepancy.
[CBP Dec. 17-13, 82 FR 45407, Sept. 28, 2017]
§ 1204.13 Denials. ( a ) The Board may deny: A request for reduced fees or waiver of fees; a request for a record, either in whole or in part; a request for expeditious processing based on the requester's compelling need; or a request that records be released in a specific electronic format. The denial will be in writing, will state the reasons, and will notify the requester of the right to appeal.
( b ) If the Board applies one or more of the exemptions provided under the FOIA to deny access to some or all of the information requested, it will respond in writing, identifying for the requester the specific exemption(s), providing an explanation as to why the exemption(s) to withhold the requested information must be applied, and providing an estimate of the amount of material that has been denied to the requester, unless providing such an estimate would harm an interest protected by the exemptions.
( c ) The amount of information deleted will be indicated on the released portion of the record at the place in the record where the deletion is made, if technically feasible and unless the indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption under which the deletion is made.
### **CHAPTER 13—APPROPRIATIONS**

#### SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL

Sec.
1301.
Application.
1302.
Determining amounts appropriated.
1303.
Effect of changes in titles of appropriations.
1304.
Judgments, awards, and compromise settlements.
1305.
Miscellaneous permanent appropriations.
1306.
Use of foreign credits.
1307.
Public building construction.
1308.
Telephone and metered services.
1309.
Social security tax.
1310.
Appropriations for private organizations.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—TRUST FUNDS AND REFUNDS

1321.
Trust funds.
1322.
Payments of unclaimed trust fund amounts and refund of amounts erroneously deposited.
1323.
Trust funds for certain fees, donations, quasi-public amounts, and unearned amounts.
1324.
Refund of internal revenue collections.

#### SUBCHAPTER III—LIMITATIONS, EXCEPTIONS, AND PENALTIES

1341.
Limitations on expending and obligating amounts.
1342.
Limitation on voluntary services.
1343.
Buying and leasing passenger motor vehicles and aircraft.
1344.
Passenger carrier use.
1345.
Expenses of meetings.
1346.
Commissions, councils, boards, and interagency and similar groups.
1347.
Appropriations or authorizations required for agencies in existence for more than one year.
1348.
Telephone installation and charges.
1349.
Adverse personnel actions.
1350.
Criminal penalty.
1351.
Reports on violations.
1352.
Limitation on use of appropriated funds to influence certain Federal contracting and financial transactions.
1353.
Acceptance of travel and related expenses from non-Federal sources.
1354.
Limitation on use of appropriated funds for contracts with entities not meeting veterans' employment reporting requirements.
1355.
Prohibition on use of funds for portraits.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2018**—Pub. L. 115–158, §2(b), Mar. 27, 2018, 132 Stat. 1242, added item 1355. Item was added to the analysis for this chapter to reflect the probable intent of Congress, notwithstanding directory language amending the analysis for subchapter III of this chapter.

**1998**—Pub. L. 105–339, §7(b)(2), Oct. 31, 1998, 112 Stat. 3189, added item 1354.

**1990**—Pub. L. 101–280, §4(b)(2), May 4, 1990, 104 Stat. 157, redesignated item 1352 "Acceptance of travel and related expenses from non-Federal sources" as 1353.

**1989**—Pub. L. 101–194, title III, §302(b), Nov. 30, 1989, 103 Stat. 1746, added item 1352 "Acceptance of travel and related expenses from non-Federal sources".

Pub. L. 101–121, title III, §319(a)(2), Oct. 23, 1989, 103 Stat. 756, added item 1352 "Limitation on use of appropriated funds to influence certain Federal contracting and financial transactions".

**1986**—Pub. L. 99–550, §1(b), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3070, substituted "Passenger carrier use" for "Passenger motor vehicle and aircraft use" in item 1344.
#### § 190.21 Direct identification manufacturing drawback.

Section 313(a) of the Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1313(a)), provides for drawback upon the exportation, or destruction under CBP supervision, of articles manufactured or produced in the United States with the use of imported merchandise, provided that those articles have not been used in the United States prior to such exportation or destruction. The amount of drawback allowable will not exceed 99 percent of the amount of duties, taxes, and fees paid with respect to the imported merchandise. However, duties may not be refunded upon the exportation or destruction of flour or by-products produced from imported wheat. Where two or more products result, drawback must be distributed among the products in accordance with their relative values, as defined in § 190.2, at the time of separation. Merchandise may be identified for drawback purposes under 19 U.S.C. 1313(a) in the manner provided for and prescribed in § 190.14.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 13, 2021

No. 04-20-00600-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF CARLOS BENAVIDES, JR., AN 

INCAPACITATED PERSON,

From the County Court At Law No 1, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011PB6000081-L2-B

Honorable Hugo Martinez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

 Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file her brief is GRANTED. Appellant’s 

brief is due on or before May 14, 2021.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of April, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
#### § 1201.32 Witnesses; right to representation.

Witnesses have the right to be represented when testifying. The representative of a nonparty witness has no right to examine the witness at the hearing or otherwise participate in the development of testimony.
#### § 190.41 Rejected merchandise drawback.

Section 313(c) of the Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1313(c)), provides for drawback upon the exportation or destruction under CBP supervision of imported merchandise which has been entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, duty-paid, and which: Does not conform to sample or specifications; has been shipped without the consent of the consignee; or has been determined to be defective as of the time of importation; or ultimately sold at retail by the importer or the person who received the merchandise from the importer, and for any reason returned to and accepted by the importer or the person who received the merchandise from the importer. The total amount of drawback allowable will be 99 percent of the amount of duties paid with respect to the imported, duty-paid merchandise. *See* subpart P of this part for drawback of internal revenue taxes for unmerchantable or nonconforming distilled spirits, wines, or beer.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Robert Phillip MOORE, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-30295.

D.C. No. CR-00-00419-HA.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*671Submitted May 13, 2002 *.

Decided May 28, 2002.

Before FERNANDEZ, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Phillip Moore, Jr. appeals his 30-month sentence, imposed following his guilty plea to mail fraud, bank fraud, conspiracy to file false claims for tax refunds, and aiding and abetting the filing of false tax returns in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 286, 287, 1341, and 1344. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

Moore challenges the district court’s imposition of a 3-level upward adjustment for playing a leadership role in the offense.1 To justify this adjustment, the government must show that the defendant had an aggravating role in the offense by a preponderance of the evidence. *United States v. Mares-Molina,*913 F.2d 770, 773 (9th Cir.1990). “[T]o sustain a finding that a defendant in fact played one of the four specified roles [in U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1], there must be evidence that the defendant ‘exercised some control over others involved in commission of the offense [or was] responsible for organizing others for the purpose of carrying out the crime.’ ” *United States v. Harper,*33 F.3d 1143, 1151 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). We review for clear error, *Mares-Molina,*913 F.2d at 773, and find none.2

We conclude that the district court did not clearly err by imposing an upward enhancement for Moore’s role in the offense because it reasonably could have found that Moore “organized] others in the commission of the criminal activity even though he [did] not retain a supervisory role over the other participants. The enhancement reflects the greater level of culpability of the participant who arranges the transaction.” *United States v. Varela,*993 F.2d 686, 691-92 (9th Cir.1993).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. Because Moore’s reply brief withdraws his other claim regarding the amount of loss at issue we do not address it.

2

. We also reject Moore's argument that the district court made insufficient findings in support of the adjustment since a lower court need not make specific findings of fact in this regard. *United States v. Ponce,*51 F.3d 820, 826 (9th Cir. 1995).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN ITS REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE
THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000895648
<NAME> GENERAL GROWTH PROPERTIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          21,517
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   78,106
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       5,181,183
<DEPRECIATION>                                 403,814
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,013,133
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      3,192,808
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          337,500
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,193
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,279,228
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,013,133
<SALES>                                        162,483
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               162,483
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   86,177
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   122
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              47,985
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 28,241
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             28,241
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    28,241
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.43


</TABLE>
#### Belgo Canadian Mfg. Co., Ltd., Respondent, v. Rudolph Kellerman, Inc., Appellant.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present — Dore, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
§ 1203.11 Request for regulation review. ( a ) An interested person or the Special Counsel may submit a request for regulation review.
( b ) Contents of request. ( 1 ) Each request for regulation review must include the following information: ( i ) The name, address, and signature of the requester's representative or, if the requester has no representative, of the requester;
( ii ) A citation identifying the regulation being challenged;
( iii ) A statement (along with any relevant documents) describing in detail the reasons why the regulation would require an employee to commit a prohibited personnel practice; or the reasons why the implementation of the regulation requires an employee to commit a prohibited personnel practice;
( iv ) Specific identification of the prohibited personnel practice at issue; and
( v ) A description of the action the requester would like the Board to take.
( 2 ) If the prohibited personnel practice at issue is one prohibited by 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(12), the request must include the following additional information: ( i ) Identification of the law or regulation that allegedly would be or has been violated, and how it would be or has been violated; and
( ii ) Identification of the merit system principles at issue and an explanation of the way in which the law or regulation at issue implements or directly concerns those principles.
[54 FR 23632, June 2, 1989, as amended at 65 FR 57939, Sept. 27, 2000]
###### Editorial Note on Part 152

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 152 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93022, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 152.0 Scope.

This part contains regulations pertaining to the tariff classification and appraisement of imported merchandise. Other applicable provisions are contained elsewhere in this chapter, such as in part 10 for articles conditionally free or subject to a reduced rate of duty, and in part 159 for relief from duties on articles lost, damaged, etc.