alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1863. Funds out of Contingent Expenses, Architect of the Capitol Appropriation

Any expenditures required to implement the provisions of section 1818 of this title shall be paid from the appropriation "Contingent Expenses, Architect of the Capitol" and any funds appropriated under this head shall hereafter be available for such purpose.

(Pub. L. 93–180, §2, Dec. 13, 1973, 87 Stat. 705.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was classified to section 166e 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET--DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>



<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                          424,900,715
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                462,360,945
<PP&E>                           14,171,382
<DEPRECIATION>                    5,985,483
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  596,380,268
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            21,044,750
<BONDS>                         300,000,000
<PREFERRED>                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<COMMON>                            525,827
<OTHER-SE>                      284,620,395
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    596,380,268
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  3,310,999
<CGS>                             4,785,589
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   138,747,534
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                5,859,457
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (138,054,155)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (138,054,155)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                   (138,054,155)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         (2.94)
<EPS-DILUTED>                         (2.94)




</TABLE>
### §552. Definitions

As used in this chapter:

"Coal" means any of the recognized classifications and ranks of coal, including anthracite, bituminous, semibituminous, subbituminous, and lignite.

"Outcrop" means any place where a formation is visible or substantially exposed at the surface.

"Formation" means any vein, seam, stratum, bed, or other naturally occurring deposit.

"Coal mine" means any underground, surface, or strip mine from which coal is obtained.

"State" means any State or Territory of the United States, or any political subdivision thereof.

"Person" means an individual, partnership, association, corporation, business trust, legal representative, or any organized group of persons.

(Aug. 31, 1954, ch. 1156, §2, 68 Stat. 1009.)
### §288l. Procedural provisions

#### (a) Intervention or appearance

Permission to intervene as a party or to appear as amicus curiae under section 288e of this title shall be of right and may be denied by a court only upon an express finding that such intervention or appearance is untimely and would significantly delay the pending action or that standing to intervene has not been established under section 2 of article III of the Constitution of the United States.

#### (b) Compliance with admission requirements

The Counsel, the Deputy Counsel, or any designated Assistant Counsel or counsel specially retained by the Office shall be entitled, for the purpose of performing his functions under this chapter, to enter an appearance in any proceeding before any court of the United States or of a State or political subdivision thereof without compliance with any requirement for admission to practice before such court, except that the authorization conferred by this subsection shall not apply with respect to the admission of any such person to practice before the United States Supreme Court.

#### (c) Standing to sue; jurisdiction

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to confer standing on any party seeking to bring, or jurisdiction on any court with respect to, any civil or criminal action against Congress, either House of Congress, a Member of Congress, a committee or subcommittee of a House of Congress, any office or agency of Congress, or any officer or employee of a House of Congress or any office or agency of Congress.

(Pub. L. 95–521, title VII, §713, Oct. 26, 1978, 92 Stat. 1883.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsecs. (b) and (c), was in the original "this title", meaning title VII of Pub. L. 95–521, which enacted this chapter, section 5504 of this title, and section 1364 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, and amended sections 3210, 3216, and 3219 of Title 39, Postal Service. For complete classification of title VII to the Code, see Tables.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 3, 1979, see section 717 of Pub. L. 95–521, set out as a note under section 288 of this title.
### SUBCHAPTER V—ANNUITIES
#### Caroline E. Douglas, Respondent, v. The City of New York, Appellant.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present—Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Mills, Rich and Putnam, JJ.
#### Howard M. ELLIS, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF the TREASURY, Respondent.

No. 01-3121.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 13, 2002.

Before MICHEL, RADER and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.

*Judgment*

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
EXHIBIT 32.1





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 Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10‐Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, Patrick J. Ramsey, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Adam D. Chibib, Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), that, based upon each of their respective knowledge:


|    |                                                                                                                                                  
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m); and




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




Dated: May 4, 2011/s/ Patrick J. RamseyPatrick J. RamseyPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Adam D. ChibibAdam D. ChibibChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc., and will be retained by Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 801 Warrenville Road

 Lisle IL 60532

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov

No. III-03-011 March 20, 2003

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

 Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 

NRC TO MEET WITH DETROIT EDISON OFFICIALS TO DISCUSS SAFETY

PERFORMANCE AT FERMI NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with Detroit Edison officials on

Wednesday, March 26, to discuss the results of NRC’s annual assessment of safety performance at the

Fermi nuclear power plant near Monroe, Michigan.

The meeting will be held at 5 p.m. in the Monroe County Commissioners Chambers of the

Monroe County Building, 125 East 2nd Street. The public is invited to observe the meeting, and NRC

officials will be available before the conclusion of the meeting for questions and comments from the

public.

A letter from the NRC to Detroit Edison addresses plant safety performance during the

previous year and forms the basis for the meeting discussions. The letter states that, overall, Fermi

operated in a manner that preserved public health and safety and that plant performance was at a level

requiring no additional NRC inspection beyond normal baseline activities. The letter is available from

Region III Public Affairs Office and on the NRC web site at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/listofasmrpt.html

In addition, the letter notes: "As you are aware, since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,

the NRC has issued several Orders and threat advisories to enhance security capabilities and improve guard

force readiness. We have conducted inspections to review your implementation of these requirements and

have monitored your actions in response to changing threat advisories. For calendar Year 2003, we plan

to continue these inspections and conduct portions of the security baseline inspection program, as well as

perform additional inspections to evaluate your compliance with new requirements that may be ordered."

Current performance information for Fermi is available on the NRC web site at: 

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/FERM2/ferm2_chart.html

###
Exhibit 32

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

John S. Long, President and Chief Executive Officer, and John M. Digby, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, of Great Pee Dee Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) each certify in his capacity as an officer of the
Company that he has reviewed the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2007 and that to the best of his knowledge:



|1. | the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, as amended by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

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



|                         |  |  |  |                                      
|------------------------ |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: September 21, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ John S. Long                     
|                         |  |  |  | John S. Long                         
|                         |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                         |  | 
|Date: September 21, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ John M. Digby                    
|                         |  |  |  | John M. Digby                        
|                         |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
### §1613. Prohibition on provision of gifts or travel by registered lobbyists to Members of Congress and to congressional employees

#### (a) Prohibition

Any person described in subsection (b) may not make a gift or provide travel to a covered legislative branch official if the person has knowledge that the gift or travel may not be accepted by that covered legislative branch official under the Rules of the House of Representatives or the Standing Rules of the Senate (as the case may be).

#### (b) Persons subject to prohibition

The persons subject to the prohibition under subsection (a) are any lobbyist that is registered or is required to register under section 1603(a)(1) of this title, any organization that employs 1 or more lobbyists and is registered or is required to register under section 1603(a)(2) of this title, and any employee listed or required to be listed as a lobbyist by a registrant under section 1603(b)(6) or 1604(b)(2)(C) of this title.

(Pub. L. 104–65, §25, as added Pub. L. 110–81, title II, §206(a), Sept. 14, 2007, 121 Stat. 747.)

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 110–81, title II, §206(b), Sept. 14, 2007, 121 Stat. 747, provided that: "The amendment made by this section [enacting this section] shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act [Sept. 14, 2007]."
### **CHAPTER 38—ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES FOR FALSE CLAIMS AND STATEMENTS**

Sec.
3801.
Definitions.
3802.
False claims and statements; liability.
3803.
Hearing and determinations.
3804.
Subpoena authority.
3805.
Judicial review.
3806.
Collection of civil penalties and assessments.
3807.
Right to administrative offset.
3808.
Limitations.
3809.
Regulations.
[3810.
Repealed.]
3811.
Effect on other law.
3812.
Prohibition against delegation.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1995**—Pub. L. 104–66, title III, §3001(c)(2), Dec. 21, 1995, 109 Stat. 734, struck out item 3810 "Reports".
F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JUL 18 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

STEVE E. WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 96-3427

(D.C. No. 96-3169-SAC)

(District of Kansas)

ORDER

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, PORFILIO and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

Steve E. Williams attempts to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion for

relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In support of his request for a certificate of appealability

under 28 U.S.C. 2253(c), Mr. Williams argues that: (1) the government’s forfeiture of his

property prohibited his subsequent criminal prosecution under the Double Jeopardy

Clause; (2) his punishment for money laundering resulted in multiple punishments for

conspiracy in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause; and (3) his guilty plea was

unknowing and involuntary because it was provided in reliance on his attorney’s

erroneous calculation of his maximum possible sentence. 

Mr. Williams’ first claim is precluded by United States v. Ursery, ___ U.S. ___,

116 S.Ct. 2135 (1996), in which the Supreme Court held that civil forfeitures do not
- 2 -

constitute punishment for Double Jeopardy purposes. Id. at 2138. Mr. Williams’ second

claim is precluded by Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), because the

government’s conspiracy charge did not require proof of financial transactions, while its

money laundering charge did not require proof of conspiracy. See id. at 304 (multiple

punishments for same offense do not occur if each charge requires proof of a fact that the

other does not). Accord United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (1993). Mr. Williams’

final claim is similarly without merit. Although constitutionally deficient performance by

defense counsel may render a plea involuntary, “[a] miscalculation or erroneous sentence

estimation by defense counsel is not a constitutionally deficient performance.” United

States v. Gordon, 4 F.3d 1567, 1570 (10th Cir. 1993). Moreover, as set forth in the

district court’s order denying § 2255 relief, Mr. Williams’ contention that he did not

understand the possible penalties associated with his plea is belied by his discourse with

the court at his plea hearing and the plea agreement itself. 

Having failed to present this court with issues that are debatable among jurists, Mr.

Williams’ request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED and his appeal is

DISMISSED. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Lennox v. Evans, 87 F.3d 431 (10th Cir. 1996). 

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

John C. Porfilio

Circuit Judge
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4351

NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT III-98-18 March 13, 1998

CONTACT: Jan Strasma 630/829-9663

Angela Greenman 630/829-9662

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $330,000 FINE AGAINST COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.

FOR TESTING VIOLATIONS AT QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER STATION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $330,000 fine against

Commonwealth Edison Co. for violations of NRC requirements for the testing of the

reactor vessel and piping systems at the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station in June of

last year. The two-unit plant is located at Cordova, Illinois.

The company was cited for performing a pressure test of the Unit 2 reactor

vessel and piping on June 22 of last year after the reactor had started up, rather than

prior to startup. This test is required by the NRC to be performed before the reactor

startup to detect any leakage from the reactor vessel and associated piping.

The plant staff also failed to adequately perform required monitoring of the

reactor vessel and piping as part of the test. Similar monitoring violations were

identified for earlier tests at both of the Quad Cities units.

The plant staff misinterpreted "startup" as referring to the startup of the turbine

rather than startup of the reactor. The test was performed with the reactor at 12

percent thermal power, but before the turbine was started to produce electricity. In

previous instances, however, the plant staff had properly performed the test prior to

reactor startup.

A. Bill Beach, NRC Regional Administrator, stated, in notifying the utility of the

fine: "The performance of the Unit 2 reactor coolant pressure boundary leakage test

with the reactor at power demonstrated a significant lack of safety focus and a lack of

knowledge and understanding of the bases for the test and applicable regulatory

requirements."

He also noted that the monitoring of the reactor vessel and piping for possible

leakage during the pressure test was completed in one-third the time needed in

previous tests. The plant staff, however, did not recognize the shorter time as an

indication that the monitoring was inadequate.

Beach added, "These additional violations indicated a potentially broad lack of

understanding on the part of the Quad Cities staff for the importance of adhering to the

[pressure vessel and piping testing] requirements essential to the safe operation of

Quad Cities Station."
Commonwealth Edison has until April 13 to pay the fine or to protest it. If the

fine is protested and subsequently imposed by the NRC staff, the utility may request a

hearing.

#####
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsVibration dissociation coupling in nonequilibrium flowsThe final report on research between North Carolina State University and the NASA Ames Research Center is presented. The research was aimed at using the Schwartz, Slawsky, Herzfeld (SSH) theory to simulate the vibrational relaxation of nitrogen molecules undergoing dissociation or recombination over a wide range of conditions. The results of these simulations were then treated as exact, and they were used to develop a model for the coupled vibration-dissociation process. This new model is simple enough to be used in computational fluid dynamics codes, but still captures the physics of the complex process. The model is used to simulate the flow over typical geometries to test it and to determine how much impact it has on the flow field. The key elements of this research are summarized.Document ID19930007250Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsCandler, Graham V.*(Minnesota Univ. Minneapolis, MN, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateDecember 18, 1992Subject CategoryFluid Mechanics And Heat TransferReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:191775NASA-CR-191775Accession Number93N16439Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NCA2-519Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19930007250.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### Mansa Musa BANSHEE, formerly known as Stanley Rembert Butler, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William E. GUNN; Charles M. Condon, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 02-6414.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 16, 2002.

Decided May 28, 2002.

*371Mansa Musa Banshee, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Mansa Musa Banshee appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2001). The district court granted Banshee’s motion for a certificate of appealability. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Banshee v. Gunn,*No. CA-01-2349-6-10 (D.S.C. Feb. 21, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*