alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §3556. Nonexclusivity of remedies; matters included in agency record

This subchapter does not give the Comptroller General exclusive jurisdiction over protests, and nothing contained in this subchapter shall affect the right of any interested party to file a protest with the contracting agency or to file an action in the United States Court of Federal Claims. In any such action based on a procurement or proposed procurement with respect to which a protest has been filed under this subchapter, the reports required by sections 3553(b)(2) and 3554(e)(1) of this title with respect to such procurement or proposed procurement and any decision or recommendation of the Comptroller General under this subchapter with respect to such procurement or proposed procurement shall be considered to be part of the agency record subject to review.

(Added Pub. L. 98–369, div. B, title VII, §2741(a), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 1202; amended Pub. L. 102–572, title IX, §902(b)(1), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4516; Pub. L. 104–320, §12(f), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3876.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–320, which directed the amendment of this section by striking "a court of the United States or" in first sentence, was executed by striking "a district court of the United States or" after "to file an action in" in first sentence to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

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

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

#### Effective Date of 1996 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 104–320 effective Jan. 1, 2001, see section 12(f) of Pub. L. 104–320, set out as a Nonexclusivity of GAO Remedies note below.

#### Effective Date of 1992 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–572 effective Oct. 29, 1992, see section 911 of Pub. L. 102–572, set out as a note under section 171 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

#### Effective Date

Section applicable with respect to any protest filed after Jan. 14, 1985, see section 2751(b) of Pub. L. 98–369, set out as a note under section 4751 of Title 10, Armed Forces.

#### Nonexclusivity of GAO Remedies

Pub. L. 104–320, §12(f), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3876, provided that: "In the event that the bid protest jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States is terminated pursuant to subsection (d) [set out as a Sunset Provision note under section 1491 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure], then section 3556 of title 31, United States Code, shall be amended by striking 'a court of the United States or' in the first sentence." [Bid protest jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States terminated on Jan. 1, 2001, pursuant to section 12(d) of Pub. L. 104–320.]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gil Eberto GONZALES-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-10384.

D.C. No. CR-00-00887-JAT.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*615Submitted May 13, 2002 *.

Decided May 24, 2002.

Before FERNANDEZ, WARDLAW and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Gil Eberto Gonzales-Hernandez appeals the 84-month sentence imposed after his conviction for unlawful re-entry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Gonzales-Hernandez contends the district court erred at trial by admitting a warrant for removal or deportation into evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6). Specifically, he argues the government failed to provide the necessary foundation for the warrant’s admission. We review the admission of evidence under an exception to the hearsay rule for abuse of discretion, *United States v. Hemandez-Herrera,*273 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir.2001), and find none.

Warrants for deportation are generally admissible under Rule 803(8), not 803(6). *United States v. Loyolar-Dominguez,*125 F.3d 1315, 1317-18 (9th Cir.1997). However, if a district court admitted evidence that would have been properly admitted otherwise, “no reversible error occurr[ed] simply because the party offering the evidence fail[ed] to advise the court of the correct basis for its admission.” *See id.*at 1318.

Because warrants of deportation are public records within the meaning of Rule 803(8), the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the record into evidence.

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          23,278
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,499
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,253
<INVENTORY>                                     26,582
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               103,669
<PP&E>                                          93,509
<DEPRECIATION>                                  51,494
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 152,277
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,722
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           162
<OTHER-SE>                                     105,300
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   152,277
<SALES>                                        141,310
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               141,310
<CGS>                                           94,622
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   94,622
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                53,839
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (89)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (857)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,205)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,357)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,848)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,848)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.24)


</TABLE>
### §782. Leasing of space in the General Accounting Office Building

The Comptroller General is authorized to lease or otherwise provide space and services within the General Accounting Office Building 1 to persons, both public and private, or to any department, agency or instrumentality of the United States Government upon such terms and conditions as the Comptroller General deems necessary to protect the public interest. The Comptroller General shall establish a rental rate for such leased space equivalent to the prevailing commercial rate for comparable space devoted to a similar purpose in the vicinity of the General Accounting Office Building.1 Additionally, the Comptroller General may make available, on occasion, or may lease at such rates and on such other terms and conditions as the Comptroller General deems to be in the public interest, auditoriums, meeting rooms, and lobbies of the General Accounting Office Building 1 to persons, firms, or organizations engaged in cultural, educational, or recreational activities (as defined in section 3306(a) of title 40). The Comptroller General will consult with the Administrator of General Services and will give priority to Federal agencies in filling available space within the General Accounting Office Building.1 Payments for space or services may be made in advance or by way of reimbursement and shall be deposited to a special account and shall be available for expenditure for operation, maintenance, protection, alteration, or repair of the General Accounting Office Building 1 in such amounts as are specified in annual appropriation Acts without regard to fiscal year limitations.

(Added Pub. L. 100–545, §1, Oct. 28, 1988, 102 Stat. 2728; amended Pub. L. 103–272, §4(f)(1)(D), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1362; Pub. L. 107–217, §3(h)(2), Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1299.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2002—Pub. L. 107–217 substituted "(as defined in section 3306(a) of title 40)" for "(as defined in section 105 of the Public Buildings Cooperative Use Act of 1976 (40 U.S.C. 612a))".

1994—Pub. L. 103–272 substituted "612a))." for "612a)."

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

#### Change of Name

General Accounting Office redesignated Government Accountability Office. See section 8 of Pub. L. 108–271, set out as a note under section 702 of this title.

#### Payments of Reimbursements Incident to Operation of General Accounting Office Building

Pub. L. 101–520, title II, Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 2275, as amended by Pub. L. 108–271, §8(b), July 7, 2004, 118 Stat. 814, provided in part that "notwithstanding the provisions of section 782 of title 31, United States Code, hereinafter any payments of reimbursements received incident to the operation of the General Accounting Office Building shall be credited to the appropriation currently available to the Government Accountability Office and remain available until expended, and not more than $5,915,000 of such funds shall be available for use in fiscal year 1991".

1 See Change of Name note below.
§ 1216.202 Factors the MSPB will consider. The General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, may grant an employee permission to testify on matters relating to official information, or produce official records and information, in response to a demand or request. Among the relevant factors that the General Counsel may consider in making this decision are whether: ( a ) The purposes of this part are met;
( b ) Allowing such testimony or production of records would be necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice;
( c ) Allowing such testimony or production of records would assist or hinder the MSPB in performing its statutory duties;
( d ) Allowing such testimony or production of records would be in the best interest of the MSPB or the United States;
( e ) The records or testimony can be obtained from other sources;
( f ) The demand or request is unduly burdensome or otherwise inappropriate under the applicable rules of discovery or the rule of procedure governing the case or mater in which the demand or request arose;
( g ) Disclosure would violate a statute, Executive Order or regulation;
( h ) Disclosure would reveal confidential, sensitive, or privileged information, trade secrets or similar, confidential or financial information, otherwise protected information, or information which would otherwise be inappropriate for release;
( i ) Disclosure would impede or interfere with an ongoing law enforcement investigation or proceeding, or compromise constitutional rights or national security interests;
( j ) Disclosure would result in the MSPB appearing to favor one litigant over another;
( k ) Whether the request was served before the demand;
( l ) A substantial Government interest is implicated;
( m ) The demand or request is within the authority of the party making it; and
( n ) The demand or request is sufficiently specific to be answered.
### §796f–5. "Eligible agency" defined

As used in this subpart, the term "eligible agency" means a consumer-controlled, community-based, cross-disability, nonresidential private nonprofit agency.

(Pub. L. 93–112, title VII, §726, as added Pub. L. 105–220, title IV, §410, Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1237.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 796f–5, Pub. L. 93–112, title VII, §726, as added Pub. L. 102–569, title VII, §701(2), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4464, defined "eligible agency", prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 105–220.
§ 1639.24 Certification. ( a ) The Board will provide a certification to the paying agency in all cases in which: ( 1 ) The hearing official determines that a debt exists;
( 2 ) The employee admits the existence and amount of the debt by failing to request a hearing; or
( 3 ) The employee admits the existence of the debt by failing to appear at a hearing.
( b ) The certification must be in writing and must include: ( 1 ) A statement that the employee owes the debt;
( 2 ) The amount and basis of the debt;
( 3 ) The date the Board's right to collect the debt first accrued;
( 4 ) A statement that the Board's regulations have been approved by the Office of Personnel Management under 5 CFR part 550, subpart K;
( 5 ) The amount and date of the collection, if only a one-time offset is required;
( 6 ) If the collection is to be made in installments, the number of installments to be collected, the amount of each installment, and the date of the first installment, if a date other than the next officially established pay period is required; and
( 7 ) Information regarding the completion of procedures required by 5 U.S.C. 5514, including the dates of notices and hearings provided to the employee, or, if applicable, the employee's signed consent to salary offset or a signed statement acknowledging receipt of required procedures.
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 of American Bio Medica Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2006 (the "Report"), I,
Keith E. Palmer, Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



                                       /s/ Keith E. Palmer
                                       -------------------
                                       Keith E. Palmer
                                       Chief Financial Officer and
                                       Executive Vice President

                                       May 15, 2006


                                       20
Re: Amendment to Exemption 11067 issued pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA 

Reform Act and Part 11 of the Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory Docket 

No. FAA-2014-0357. 

Dear Sir or Madam; 

Pictorvision Inc. was issued an Exemption numbered 11 067 (hereinafter the Exemption) 

for the purpose of conducting scripted, closed-set filming for the motion picture and television 

industry. Pictorvision Inc. herby requests an amendment to the Exemption to allow 2 additional 

models of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that fully complies with the conditions of the 

Exemption. 

Pictorvision Inc. wishes to operate two additional variations of the sUAS (models number 

PV-HL 1 and PV-HL2) under the same terms and conditions contained in the Exemption. 

Attached hereto, and submitted as a confidential document, is the Flight Operations and 

Procedures Manual (FOPM) for the additional UAS. All operations of the additional UAS will be 

in full compliance with the terms of the Exemption. 

As this is an amendment to an existing exemption asking for only the addition of 2 

similar models of unmanned aerial vehicle, Pictorvision Inc. respectfully submits that good 

cause exists so that notice does not need to be published in the Federal Register for the 

requested amendment. 

Please contact the undersigned should you have any question concerning this request 

for an amendment to the Exemption. 

cc: 

James Williams 

Robert Pappas 

Jake Troutman John McGraw Jonathan B. Hill 

111298720 v1 

Sincerely yours, 

Tom Hallman 

President Pictorvision Inc. 

818-785-9282
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1073

AZHAR ELAHI,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: May 20, 2019 Decided: May 30, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KING, Circuit Judge, and DUNCAN, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Azhar Elahi, Petitioner Pro Se. Judith Roberta O’Sullivan, Jane Tracey Schaffner, Office 

of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Azhar Elahi, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of an order of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration 

Judge’s denial of his request withholding of removal.*

 We have thoroughly reviewed the 

record, including the transcript of Elahi’s merits hearing and all supporting evidence. We

conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the 

agency’s factual findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial 

evidence supports the Board’s decision, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 

(1992). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. 

See In re Elahi (B.I.A. Dec. 20, 2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED

 * Elahi does not challenge the denial of relief under the Convention Against 

Torture. While he does assert that he qualified for asylum, he declined to pursue asylum 

in immigration court and failed to exhaust the asylum issue before the Board. 

Accordingly, the issue of asylum is barred from judicial review for failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (2012); Massis v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 

631, 638-40 (4th Cir. 2008).
NRC NEWS

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. II-02-019 March 26, 2002

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417

 

NRC TO MEET WITH CP&L OFFICIALS TO DISCUSS SAFETY

PERFORMANCE AT ROBINSON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with Carolina Power & Light

Company officials on Tuesday, April 2, to discuss the results of NRC's annual assessment of safety

performance at the Robinson nuclear power plant, located near Hartsville, South Carolina.

The meeting will be held at 2:00 p.m. in the Hartsville City Hall. The public is invited to

observe the meeting, and NRC officials will be available before the meeting is adjourned to answer any

questions.

A letter sent from the NRCís Regional Administrator to CP&L, which addresses plant safety

performance during the previous year and forms the basis of the meeting discussion, is available from

Region II Public Affairs or on the NRC web site at

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/rob_2001q4.pdf

Current information for the Watts Bar plant is available at

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/ROB2/rob2_chart.html

# # #
BLD-100 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 19-1114

___________

IN RE: ERIC J. JOHNSON,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(Related to M.D. Pa. Crim. No. 1:12-cr-00150-001)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

February 14, 2019

Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE and PORTER, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed February 22, 2019)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Pro se petitioner Eric Johnson has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, 

requesting that we compel the District Court to rule on his pending motion for 

reconsideration of the District Court’s order granting partial relief on his motion for a 

sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). For the reasons set forth below, we 

will deny the petition.

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 
2

In October 2015, Johnson filed a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 782 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, and the 

Office of the Federal Public Defender was appointed to represent him. In April 2016, the 

District Court granted Johnson’s § 3582(c)(2) motion and reduced his sentence from 200 

months’ imprisonment to 188 months’ imprisonment. On April 16, 2018, Johnson filed a 

motion for reconsideration of the District Court’s order granting “partial relief” on his 

previously filed § 3582(c)(2) motion. When Johnson filed this mandamus petition, on 

January 16, 2019, his motion for reconsideration had been pending for nine months. 

Subsequently, on January 28, 2019, the District Court referred Johnson’s motion for 

reconsideration to the Office of the Federal Public Defender for its consideration.

Mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary circumstances. In 

re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir. 2005). To demonstrate that 

mandamus is appropriate, a petitioner must demonstrate that “(1) no other adequate 

means [exist] to attain the relief he desires, (2) the party’s right to issuance of the writ is 

clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” 

Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted).

Here, Johnson has not demonstrated that the writ is appropriate under the 

circumstances. Since he filed his mandamus petition, the District Court has addressed his 

motion for reconsideration and referred it to the Office of the Federal Public Defender. 

 

constitute binding precedent.
3

In light of the District Court’s action, we are confident that the District Court will further 

act on his motion for reconsideration in due course.