alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 4101.105 Purchase of System institution assets. ( a ) *Prohibition on purchasing assets owned by a System institution.* No covered employee, or spouse or minor child of a covered employee, shall purchase, directly or indirectly, an asset (such as real property, vehicles, furniture, or similar items) from a System institution or related entity, unless it is sold at a public auction or by other means which assure that the selling price is the asset's fair market value. A covered employee shall obtain concurrence from the DAEO about whether a proposed purchase of a System institution asset is proper.
( b ) *Assets held or managed by the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation or a receiver or conservator* — ( 1 ) *Prohibition on purchase.* No covered employee, or spouse or minor child of a covered employee, shall purchase, directly or indirectly, an asset (such as real property, vehicles, furniture, or similar items) that is held or managed by a receiver or conservator for a System institution or that is held by the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation (Corporation) as a result of its provision of open bank assistance to troubled System banks regardless of how the asset is sold.
( 2 ) *Disqualification.* A covered employee who is involved in the disposition of receivership or conservatorship assets, or assets acquired by the Corporation as a result of its provision of open bank assistance to troubled System banks, shall disqualify himself or herself from participation in the disposition of such assets when the employee becomes aware that anyone with whom the employee has a covered relationship, as defined in § 2635.502(b)(1) of the Executive Branch-wide Standards, is or will be attempting to acquire such assets. The employee shall provide written notification of the disqualification to his or her immediate supervisor, the ethics liaison in his or her office, and the DAEO.
#### Roman Silversmiths, Inc., Respondent, v. Hampshire Silver Co., Inc., et al., Appellants, and Irwin Fenton, Intervener, Appellant.

Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore and Bergan, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 21.]
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of CEO**

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

**(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

 

Pursuantto section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Gateway, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Gateway”), does hereby certify that:

 

a) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended June 30, 2005 (the “Form 10-Q”) of Gateway fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

b) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Gateway. 

 

Dated: August 15, 2005
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6325

DARREL R. FISHER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. J.C. HOLLAND; MEGAN BRENNAN , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh

. Louise W. Flanagan , District Judge. ( 5:18

- ct

- 03149

- FL )

Submitted : July 18, 2019 Decided: July 22, 2019

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Darrel R. Fisher , Appellant Pro Se

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Darrel R. Fisher seeks to appeal the district court’s order directing him to file a particularized amended complaint. After Fisher filed his notice of appeal, the district court dismissed the action with prejudice as frivolous or, alternatively, for failure to comply with the order to particularize. This court may exercise jur isdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp ., 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). When a notice of appeal is prem ature, the entry of final judgment can cure the resulting jurisdictional defect under the doctrine of cumulative finality but only if the order being appealed could have been certified for intermediate appeal under Rule 54(b). In re Bryson , 406 F.3d 284, 287

- 89 (4th Cir. 2005); Equip. Fin. Grp. v. Traverse Computer Brokers , 973 F.2d 345, 347 (4th Cir. 1992). The order Fisher seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Further, because the district court c ould not have certified the challenged order for immediate appeal under Rule 54(b), the cumulative finality doctrine does not apply. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense wi th 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.
DISMISSED
#### § 307.101 Purpose.

This part implements 38 U.S.C. 4214 and Executive Order 11521, which authorizes agencies to appoint *qualified covered veterans* to positions in the competitive service under Veterans Recruitment Appointments (VRAs) without regard to the competitive examining system.
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

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

 

No. 06-014 February 3, 2006

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD SCHEDULES HEARING ON PROPOSED

URANIUM ENRICHMENT PLANT IN NEW MEXICO

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) will begin

an evidentiary hearing March 6 in Hobbs, N.M., on a proposed uranium enrichment plant to be built in

Lea County. In addition, the Board will hold special sessions March 5 and March 6 to allow members

of the public to make brief statements.

During the evidentiary hearing, the ASLB will receive testimony and exhibits in the “mandatory

hearing” portion of the adjudication concerning the proposed National Enrichment Facility to be built

by Louisiana Energy Services near Eunice, N.M. This hearing will concern safety and environmental

matters other than those that were raised by intervening parties and are currently being litigated in a

separate “contested” hearing. LES and the NRC staff will be parties in the mandatory hearing.

Members of the Licensing Board are G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chairman; Dr. Paul B. Abramson

and Dr. Charles N. Kelber.

The evidentiary hearing will begin at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, March 6, and will continue daily

until completed. Hearing sessions will be held at the New Mexico Junior College, Moran Building

Multi-Purpose Room, 5317 Lovington Highway, in Hobbs. Portions of these hearing sessions may be

closed to the public to allow discussion of protected information.

On Sunday, March 5, from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m., and on Monday, March 6, from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m.,

the Board will convene at the same location to hear statements from the public. Members of the public

who are not parties or representatives of parties in the hearings may make oral statements no longer

than five minutes on matters relating to the LES proceeding.

Persons wishing to make oral statements at either the March 5 or March 6 evening session

should send a written request by February 22, 2006, to Office of the Secretary, Rulemakings and

Adjudications Staff, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001; by fax to

(301) 415-1101; or by e-mail to hearingdocket@nrc.gov . Requests should also be sent to the ASLB by

fax to (301) 415-5599 or by e-mail to emp1@nrc.gov and gpb@nrc.gov . Depending on the number of

requests to speak received by Feb. 22, the Board may decide to cancel one or both of the public

statement sessions.

###
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

          - [EOIR No. 149] 

# AGENCY:

Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”), Justice.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        This notice is to inform all parties that the motion to reopen period as defined in section (II)(B)(4) of the settlement agreement in                         *Barahona-Gomez*                         v.                         *Ashcroft*, 243 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2002), was extended to March 20, 2005. The full settlement agreement can be found at 243 F. Supp. 2d 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2002), and also is reproduced on the EOIR Web site at                         *http://www.usdoj.gov/​eoir.*                         The settlement agreement initially provided that the motion to reopen period was for eighteen (18) months from the date the Advisory Statement was published in the                         **Federal Register**                        . The Advisory Statement providing notice of the settlement was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on March 20, 2003. See 68 FR 13727. The motion to reopen period was to close on September 20, 2004. Under section (II)(B)(4) of the settlement agreement, if any eligible class member filed a motion to reopen proceedings under the settlement agreement within six months prior to September 20, 2004, the motion to reopen period is extended for an additional 180 days. This notice acknowledges that the deadline date was extended to March 20, 2005.                    

# DATES:

The deadline for filing motions to reopen under the settlement agreement was extended to March 20, 2005.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

MaryBeth Keller, General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church, VA 22041, telephone (703) 305-0470. 

Dated: October 15, 2004.

Kevin D. Rooney,

Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review.

[FR Doc. 04-24208 Filed 10-28-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-30-M
§ 351.505 Records. ( a ) The agency is responsible for maintaining correct personnel records that are used to determine the retention standing of its employees competing for retention under this part.
( b ) The agency must allow its retention registers and related records to be inspected by: ( 1 ) An employee of the agency who has received a specific reduction in force notice, and/or the employee's representative if the representative is acting on behalf of the individual employee; and
( 2 ) An authorized representative of OPM.
( c ) An employee who has received a specific notice of reduction in force under authority of subpart H of this part has the right to review any completed records used by the agency in a reduction in force action that was taken, or will be taken, against the employee, including: ( 1 ) The complete retention register with the released employee's name and other relevant retention information (including the names of all other employees listed on that register, their individual service computation dates calculated under § 351.503(d), and their adjusted service computation dates calculated under § 351.503(e)) so that the employee may consider how the agency constructed the competitive level, and how the agency determined the relative retention standing of the competing employees; and
( 2 ) The complete retention registers for other positions that could affect the composition of the employee's competitive level, and/or the determination of the employee's assignment rights (e.g., registers to which the released employee may have potential assignment rights under § 351.701(b) and (c)).
( d ) An employee who has not received a specific reduction in force notice has no right to review the agency's retention registers and related records.
( e ) The agency is responsible for ensuring that each employee's access to retention records is consistent with both the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), and the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a).
( f ) The agency must preserve all registers and records relating to a reduction in force for at least 1 year after the date it issues a specific reduction in force notice.
[64 FR 16800, Apr. 7, 1999]
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Theocharis Vatouios, Respondent, against William Markakis et al., Appellants, and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Respondent. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

This is an appeal by the State Insurance Fund, the insurance carrier of [he employer, from an award in favor of claimant for temporary total disability. The employer was a painting contractor conducting its business in the city of New York. It had no office or place of business elsewhere. Claimant was a resident of the State of New York. Claimant was employed to paint railroad bridges at various locations in the States of New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. While working as a painter at Chester, Pennsylvania, he became disabled as a result of blood poisoning and was Corced to discontinue work. The board found that claimant was not engaged in work at any fixed location without the State of New York and that his occupation was transitory in nature and incidental to the business transacted by the employer in the State of New' York and that consequently the board had jurisdiction. That is the only question raised by the appellants. Award affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Hill, P. J, Heffernan, Brewster and Russell, JJ., concur; Foster, J., dissents, and votes to dismiss the claim on the authority of *Matter of Amaxis*v. *Vassilaros*(258 N. Y. 544).
DARLINGTON COUNTY BANCSHARES, INC.


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

         CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Henry M.  Funderburk,  the President and Chief  Executive  Officer of Darlington
County  Bancshares,  Inc. (the "Company"),  hereby certifies that to the best of
his knowledge:

     1.   This Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company (the "Report")  fully
          complies  with  the   requirements  of  section  13(a)  or  15(d),  as
          applicable,  of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
          78o(d)); and

     2.   The  information  contained  in this Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.

The foregoing certification is made solely for the purpose of complying with the
requirements  of Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  ss.
1350)  and  may not be  relied  upon  by  anyone  for  any  other  purpose.  The
undersigned  expressly  disclaims any undertaking to update such  certifications
except as required by law.


Date:  March 24, 2004                      /s/ Henry M. Funderburk
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Henry M. Funderburk
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Darlington  County  Bancshares,  Inc.  and  will  be  retained  by
Darlington County Bancshares,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-124519, 333-100012and 333-48514 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 22,2006, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statementschedule of @Road, Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively the “Company”),and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting (which report expresses an adverse opinion on the effectiveness ofthe Company’s internal control over financial reporting because of materialweaknesses) appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of theCompany for the year ended December 31, 2005.

/s/ Deloitte &Touche LLP

San Jose, CaliforniaMarch 22,2006

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than December 31, 2018.

*A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta*                     (Kathryn Haney, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Comments can also be sent electronically to                     *Applications.Comments@atl.frb.org:*

                    1.                     *Rabun Beasley, Zachary Johnson, and Deborah Beasley Johnson, acting in concert with the R. Darrell Beasley group, all of Hazlehurst, Georgia;*                     to retain voting shares of Hazlehurst Investors, Inc., and thereby retain shares of Bank of Hazlehurst both of Hazlehurst, Georgia.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 12, 2018.

Yao-Chin Chao,

Assistant Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2018-27247 Filed 12-14-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs, Region I

 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa.

www.nrc.gov

 

No. I-05-056 Nov. 1, 2005

Contact: Diane Screnci, 610/337-5330 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov

Neil Sheehan, 610/337-5331; cell phone, 484/919-2200

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

ARE KEY PART OF OYSTER CREEK LICENSE RENEWAL REVIEW

 

TOMS RIVER, N.J. (NOV. 1) – The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says public comments

received today at meetings regarding the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station are essential to help

the agency determine whether to relicense the plant for another 20 years.

“A key element of our relicensing process is listening to what area residents have to say,” said

Michael Masnik, the NRC project manager who is leading the environmental review associated with

the application. “With our mission of openness, hearing what the public has to say is very important.”

Masnik said that because the agency places such a heavy emphasis on public comment, two

sessions have been scheduled: one from 1:30 to 4:30 p.m. and a second from 7 to 10 p.m. to ensure

those who cannot attend during the day have the opportunity to be heard in the evening. The sessions

are taking place at the Quality Inn at 815 Route 37 in Toms River.

The comments received from the public will be reviewed not just by the NRC but also by wellrespected national laboratories to enable the agency to reach a decision about adding two decades to the

license for the plant, which is located in Lacey Township (Ocean County), N.J., and operated by

AmerGen. The facility’s current 40-year license is set to expire in April 2009.

The specific focus of today’s meetings will be any potential environmental impacts resulting

from an extension of the plant’s license. The conclusion of this environmental “scoping” process will

be on Nov. 15. The findings of the environmental review will be published in a draft report due out

next June. The public will then have an opportunity to comment on that report before issuance of the

final version in January 2007.

The environmental review will be carried out in line with the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969, which requires that federal agencies follow a systematic approach in evaluating potential

environmental impacts associated with certain actions, including nuclear power plant license renewal.

That includes a review of the impacts of the proposed action and any mitigation for those impacts the

agency considers to be significant. In addition, it requires the consideration of alternatives to the

proposed action, including the no-action alternative.
AmerGen submitted a license renewal application for Oyster Creek on July 22. As part of its

application, the company submitted an environmental report. The application can be reviewed via the

NRC’s web site at: www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/oystercreek.html . 

It is also available for review at the NRC’s Public Document Room in Rockville, Md., which can be

reached by phone at 1-800-397-4209, and at the Lacey Branch of the Ocean County Library, located at

10 E. Lacey Road.

###