alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §10155. Rules

The Attorney General shall issue rules to carry out this part. The first such rules shall be issued not later than one year after the date on which amounts are first made available to carry out this part.

(Pub. L. 90–351, title I, §504, as added Pub. L. 109–162, title XI, §1111(a)(2)(C), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 3097.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 3754 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 504 of title I of Pub. L. 90–351, as added Pub. L. 100–690, title VI, §6091(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4333; amended Pub. L. 101–162, title II, §211, Nov. 21, 1989, 103 Stat. 1006; Pub. L. 101–515, title II, §207, Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 2119; Pub. L. 101–647, title VI, §601(a), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4823; Pub. L. 102–140, title I, §§108, 109, Oct. 28, 1991, 105 Stat. 794; Pub. L. 103–322, title XV, §150009, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2036; Pub. L. 107–273, div. A, title II, §203(a)(1), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1775, related to grant limitations, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 109–162, title XI, §1111(a)(1), (d), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 3094, 3102, applicable with respect to the first fiscal year beginning after Jan. 5, 2006, and each fiscal year thereafter.

Another prior section 504 of title I of Pub. L. 90–351, formerly §604, as added Pub. L. 96–157, §2, Dec. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 1197; renumbered §504 and amended Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §608(b), (f), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2087, related to application requirements for discretionary grants, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 100–690, title VI, §6091(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4328.

Another prior section 504 of title I of Pub. L. 90–351, as added Pub. L. 96–157, §2, Dec. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 1193, prescribed application requirements, including contents of applications, certifications, review by State criminal justice councils, and private nonprofit organizations, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §607, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2086.

Another prior section 504 of Pub. L. 90–351, title I, June 19, 1968, 82 Stat. 205; Pub. L. 93–83, §2, Aug. 6, 1973, 87 Stat. 211, provided for place for holding of hearings, signing and issuance of subpenas, administering of oaths, the examination of witnesses, and reception of evidence by Administration personnel, prior to the general amendment of title I of Pub. L. 90–351 by Pub. L. 96–157.

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

#### Effective Date

Section applicable with respect to the first fiscal year beginning after Jan. 5, 2006, and each fiscal year thereafter, see section 1111(d) of Pub. L. 109–162, set out as an Effective Date of 2006 Amendment note under section 10151 of this title.
§ 10002.4 Procedures for public announcement of meetings. ( a ) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the Council shall make a public announcement at least seven days prior to a meeting. The public announcement shall include: ( 1 ) The time and place of the meeting;
( 2 ) The subject matter of the meeting;
( 3 ) Whether the meeting is to be open, closed, or portions of a meeting will be closed;
( 4 ) Whether public participation will be allowed;
( 5 ) The name and telephone number of the person who will respond to requests for information about the meeting;
( b ) The seven-day prior notice required by paragraph (a) of this section may be reduced only if: ( 1 ) A majority of all members determine by recorded vote that Council business requires that such meeting be scheduled in less than seven days; and
( 2 ) The public announcement required by this section is made at the earliest practicable time.
( c ) If public notice is provided by means other than publication in the Federal Register, notice will be promptly submitted to the Federal Register for publication.
§ 581.201 Agent to receive process. ( a ) Appendix A to this part lists agents designated to accept service of process.
( b ) The head of each governmental entity shall submit to the Office of the General Counsel, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Washington, DC 20415, for publication in appendix A to this part, the following information concerning the agent(s) designated to accept service of process: ( 1 ) Title;
( 2 ) Mailing address;
( 3 ) Telephone number; and
( 4 ) Geographical area or region, if applicable.
( c ) United States Attorneys are not considered appropriate agents to accept service of process.
[45 FR 85667, Dec. 30, 1980, as amended at 55 FR 1356, Jan. 16, 1990]
##### 



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 National Waterworks, Inc. (the
Company), on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 25, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harry
K. Hornish, Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my 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; 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/ Harry K. Hornish, Jr.Harry K. Hornish, Jr.President and Chief Executive OfficerAugust 3, 2004
 A signed written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
National Waterworks, Inc. and will be retained by National Waterworks, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission and its staff upon request. 20
§ 351.402 Competitive area. ( a ) Each agency shall establish competitive areas in which employees compete for retention under this part.
( b ) A competitive area must be defined solely in terms of the agency's organizational unit(s) and geographical location and, except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, it must include all employees within the competitive area so defined. A competitive area may consist of all or part of an agency. The minimum competitive area is a subdivision of the agency under separate administration within the local commuting area.
( c ) When a competitive area will be in effect less than 90 days prior to the effective date of a reduction in force, a description of the competitive area shall be submitted to the OPM for approval in advance of the reduction in force. Descriptions of all competitive areas must be made readily available for review.
( d ) Each agency shall establish a separate competitive area for each Inspector General activity established under authority of the Inspector General Act of 1978, Public Law 95-452, as amended, in which only employees of that office shall compete for retention under this part.
( e ) When an agency finds that a competitive area defined under paragraph (b) of this section includes pay band positions and positions not covered by a pay band, the agency may, at its discretion, define a separate (and additional) competitive area, otherwise consistent with paragraph (b) of this section, to include only pay band positions. The original competitive area would then include only the remaining positions (*i.e.*, those positions not covered by a pay band).
[51 FR 319 Jan. 3, 1986, as amended at 56 FR 65416, Dec. 17, 1991; 62 FR 62500, Nov. 24, 1997; 73 FR 46532, Aug. 11, 2008]
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier: 2010** 

**- NM** 
**- 178** 

**- AD** 

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
# L_2015230EN.01002901.xml

| 3.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 230/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 230/29

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 226/2014

of 24 October 2014

amending Annex X (Services in general) to the EEA Agreement [2015/1450]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (“the EEA Agreement”), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Implementing Decision 2013/329/EU of 26 June 2013 providing the rules for the establishment, management and transparent functioning of the Network of national authorities or bodies responsible for health technology assessment (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Implementing Decision 2013/329/EU of 26 June 2013 providing the rules for the establishment, management and transparent functioning of the Network of national authorities or bodies responsible for health technology assessment (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex X to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex X to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following point is inserted after point 2a (Commission Implementing Directive 2012/52/EU) of Annex X to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘2b. | 32013 D 0329: Commission Implementing Decision 2013/329/EU of 26 June 2013 providing the rules for the establishment, management and transparent functioning of the Network of national authorities or bodies responsible for health technology assessment (OJ L 175, 27.6.2013, p. 71).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘2b.

32013 D 0329: Commission Implementing Decision 2013/329/EU of 26 June 2013 providing the rules for the establishment, management and transparent functioning of the Network of national authorities or bodies responsible for health technology assessment (OJ L 175, 27.6.2013, p. 71).’

Article 2

The texts of Implementing Decision 2013/329/EU in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 1 November 2014, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 24 October 2014.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Kurt JÄGER

---

(1)  
  OJ L 175, 27.6.2013, p. 71.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
Administrative Offices Civil and Family Division Criminal Division Jury Office

(512) 854-9457 (512) 854-9457 (512) 854-9420 (512) 854-9669

fax: 854-4744 fax: 854-9549 fax: 854-4566 fax: 854-4457

Velva L. Price

Travis County District Clerk

Travis County Courthouse Complex

P.O. Box 679003

Austin, Texas 78767-9003

June 10, 2015

Mr. Jeffrey D. Kyle

Third Court of Appeals

P.O. Box 12547

Austin, Texas 78711-2547

RE: Cause number 03-14-00665-CV

Dear Mr. Kyle,

Please accept this letter as a clarification on the above-numbered request for information on the 

Amended Notice of Appeal submitted to the 3rd Court of Appeals on June 9, 2015. As stated in the 

letter dated June 9, 2015, our office has not found an Amended Notice of Appeal filed by Mr. Drake. 

However, Mr. Drake does have a 145 page Verified Motion to Reinstate and for New Trial which 

was filed with our office on March 2, 2015. 

Please correct your records to reflect this correction of the previous letter.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (512) 854-4309.

Sincerely,

Trish Winkler

Deputy Court Clerk II

Travis County District Clerk’s Office

Civil Division

(512) 854-4309
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-11417

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESSE GUZMAN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:07-CR-35-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jesse Guzman, federal prisoner # 01991-051, appeals the denial of his 

motion for modification of his restitution order and payment plan under 18 

U.S.C. § 3664(k). The district court gave no reasons for its decision. We affirm

in part and vacate and remand in part.

To the extent Guzman’s motion may be liberally construed as a challenge 

to the district court’s existing restitution order, rather than as a challenge to 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 15, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-11417 Document: 00512631424 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/15/2014
No. 13-11417

the payment plan created by the Bureau of Prisons under the Inmate Financial 

Responsibility Program (IFRP), Guzman properly invoked § 3664(k). See

United States v. Diggs, 578 F.3d 318, 319-20 (5th Cir. 2009). But his cryptic 

assertions provide no discernible basis for relief. The judgment is AFFIRMED 

IN PART as it pertains to any claims concerning the district court’s existing 

restitution order under § 3664(k). 

In all other respects, Guzman seeks modification of the IFRP plan. He 

must seek this relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district of incarceration 

after exhausting all administrative remedies. See Diggs, 578 F.3d at 319-20. 

Guzman sought relief in the correct district. But the district court did not 

consider his request under § 2241. Moreover, there is no evidence concerning 

exhaustion, and the Government has not had an opportunity to address 

Guzman’s request. We therefore VACATE AND REMAND IN PART so that 

the district court can consider Guzman’s request under § 2241 and determine 

whether he has exhausted his administrative remedies. 

The judgment is AFFIRMED IN PART and VACATED AND 

REMANDED IN PART.

2

 Case: 13-11417 Document: 00512631424 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/15/2014
§ 550.183 Substantial hours requirement. ( a ) A criminal investigator shall be eligible for availability pay only if the annual average number of hours of unscheduled duty per regular workday is 2 hours or more, as certified in accordance with § 550.184. This average is computed by dividing the total unscheduled duty hours for the annual period (numerator) by the number of regular workdays (denominator).
( b ) For the purpose of this section, *regular workday* means each day in the criminal investigator's basic workweek during which the investigator works at least 4 hours, excluding— ( 1 ) Overtime hours compensated under 5 U.S.C. 5542 and § 550.111;
( 2 ) Unscheduled duty hours compensated by availability pay under 5 U.S.C. 5545a and this subpart; and
( 3 ) Hours during which an investigator is engaged in agency-approved training, is traveling under official travel orders, is on approved leave, or is on excused absence with pay (including paid holidays).
( c ) In computing average hours under paragraph (a) of this section, the total unscheduled duty hours in the numerator shall include— ( 1 ) Any unscheduled duty hours on a regular workday; and
( 2 ) Any unscheduled duty hours actually worked by an investigator on days that are not regular workdays.
[59 FR 66151, Dec. 23, 1994]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1374

In re: ARTHUR F. JONES, JR., a/k/a Arthur Palmer, a/k/a 

June, a/k/a Junior,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

 (2:99-cr-00362-DCN-1)

Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 23, 2016

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur F. Jones, Petitioner Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Arthur F. Jones, Jr., petitions for a writ of mandamus 

seeking an order directing the district court to remand his 

criminal case to state court.* We conclude that Jones is not 

entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only 

in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 

U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 

516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available 

only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. 

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 

1988). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In 

re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007).

The relief sought by Jones is not available by way of 

mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. 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

 * Jones mailed a courtesy copy of the instant petition to 

the district court, which then proceeded to docket the petition 

in a new civil case. Jones v. United States, No. 6:16-cv-01059-

MBS (D.S.C., PACER No. 1). We understand Jones’ petition to be 

directed to this court.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2



                            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 June 30, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2002 (the
"Report"), I, Keith E. Palmer, Chief Financial Officer and 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
                                                     Vice President

                                                     August 7, 2002
SHARON KELLER

 PRESIDING JUDGE

LAWRENCE E. MEYERS

CHERYL JOHNSON

MIKE KEASLER

BARBARA P. HERVEY

ELSA ALCALA

BERT RICHARDSON

KEVIN P. YEARY

DAVID NEWELL

 JUDGES

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK

(512) 463-1551

SIAN SCHILHAB

GENERAL COUNSEL

(512) 463-1600

SUPREME COURT BUILDING, 201 WEST 14TH STREET, ROOM 106, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701

WEBSITE WWW.TXCOURTS.GOV/CCA.ASPX

July 27, 2015

1st Court Of Appeals Clerk

Christopher A. Prine

301 Fannin

Houston, TX 77002-7006

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Re: STAIRHIME, RYAN MATTHEW

CCA No. PD-1071-14 COA No. 01-13-00493-CR

Trial Court Case No. 1387371

The Court of Criminal Appeals has this day issued a mandate for the above-referenced and styled

case number. The mandate will be transmitted electronically only.

***COURT OF APPEALS CLERK***

MANDATE RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Pursuant to Rule 51.2(a)(1) T.R.A.P, please acknowledge receipt of the mandate of the Court of

Criminal Appeals in the above numbered and styled case via this email link.

Sincerely,

_____________________________

Abel Acosta, Clerk

cc: Presiding Judge 177th District Court (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

District Attorney Harris County (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

District Clerk Harris County (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Alan Curry (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Jani Maselli Wood (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

FILE COPY
TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Austin, Texas

M A N D A T E

TRIAL COURT NO. 1387371

COURT OF APPEALS NO. 01-13-00493-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT GREETINGS:

Before our COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS, on JULY 1, 2015, the cause upon appeal to review,

revise or reverse your Judgment between:

RYAN MATTHEW STAIRHIME

VS.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

CCRA NO. PD-1071-14

was determined; and therein our said COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS made its order in these words:

"This cause came on to be heard on the APPELLANT'S Petition for Discretionary Review, and the same

being inspected, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the Petition for

Discretionary Review be GRANTED.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and the cause is REMANDED to the Court of

Appeals, in accordance with the Opinion of this Court, and that this decision be certified below for observance."

WHEREFORE, We command you to observe the order of our said COURT OF CRIMINAL

APPEALS in this behalf and in all things to have it duly RECOGNIZED, OBEYED AND EXECUTED.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE SHARON KELLER,

Presiding Judge of our said COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS,

with the Seal thereof annexed, at the City of Austin,

on this day Monday, July 27, 2015.

ABEL ACOSTA, Clerk

By: Deana Williamson, Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY
### §6518. Workers compensation payments

#### (a) In general

Available balances of expired appropriations which are subject to disbursement by the Secretary of the Senate shall be available to the Secretary of the Senate to make the deposit to the credit of the Employees' Compensation Fund required by section 8147(b) of title 5.

#### (b) Effective date

This section shall apply with respect to appropriations for fiscal year 2014, and each fiscal year thereafter.

(Pub. L. 113–76, div. I, title I, §1, Jan. 17, 2014, 128 Stat. 420.)
### §41. Osage River, Missouri

The Osage River in the State of Missouri above the point where the south line of sections 15 and 16 in township 40 north, of range 22 west, of the fifth principal meridian, and in the county of Benton, State of Missouri, crosses said river, is declared not to be a navigable stream, and shall be so treated by the Secretary of the Army and by all other authorities.

(Mar. 4, 1904, ch. 393, 33 Stat. 58; July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, §205(a), 61 Stat. 501.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

This section superseded act June 24, 1902, ch. 1154, 32 Stat. 398, which declared that the Osage River above the point where the dividing line between the counties of Benton and Saint Clair crosses the river should not be a navigable stream.

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

#### Change of Name

Department of War designated Department of the Army and title of Secretary of War changed to Secretary of the Army by section 205(a) of act July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, 61 Stat. 501. Section 205(a) of act July 26, 1947, was repealed by section 53 of act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 641. Section 1 of act Aug. 10, 1956, enacted "Title 10, Armed Forces" which in sections 3010 to 3013 continued Department of the Army under administrative supervision of Secretary of the Army.
#### Henry R. Altherr, Respondent, v. Edwin W. Sohmer, Appellant.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Carr and Rich, JJ.