alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 919.805 What notice does the debarring official give me if I am proposed for debarment? After consideration of the causes in § 919.800 of this subpart, if the debarring official proposes to debar you, the official sends you a Notice of Proposed Debarment, pursuant to § 919.615, advising you— ( a ) That the debarring official is considering debarring you;
( b ) Of the reasons for proposing to debar you in terms sufficient to put you on notice of the conduct or transactions upon which the proposed debarment is based;
( c ) Of the cause(s) under § 919.800 upon which the debarring official relied for proposing your debarment;
( d ) Of the applicable provisions of this subpart, Subpart F of this part, and any other OPM procedures governing debarment; and
( e ) Of the governmentwide effect of a debarment from procurement and nonprocurement programs and activities.
EXHIBIT 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of VOTORANTIM CELULOSE E PAPEL S.A. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2008, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2009, as amended by the Form 20-F/A to which this statement is filed as an exhibit (the Report), I, Carlos Augusto Lira Aguiar, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                                 
|---------------------------------
|/s/    Carlos Augusto Lira Aguiar
|Name: Carlos Augusto Lira Aguiar 

October 28, 2009

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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 890.802 Definition.

In this subpart, a *Qualifying court order* means a court order acceptable for processing as defined in § 838.103 of this chapter or qualifying court order as defined in § 838.1003 of this chapter.

[57 FR 33599, July 29, 1992]
#### Fenton E. MacCallum, Respondent, v. Fred Beal et al., Defendants, and Real Silk Hosiery Mills, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

Present—Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Dowling, Harris and MeCurn, JJ.
§ 532.235 Conduct of full-scale wage survey. ( a ) Wage survey data shall not be collected before the date the survey is ordered by the lead agency.
( b ) Data collection for a full-scale wage survey shall be accomplished by personal visit to private sector establishments. With the unanimous consent of the members of a Local Wage Survey Committee, data may also be obtained from a private sector establishment or establishments during a full-scale wage survey by telephone, mail, or electronic means. The following required data shall be collected: ( 1 ) General information about the size, location, and type of product or service of the establishment sufficient to determine whether the establishment is within the scope of the survey and properly weighted, if the survey is a sample survey;
( 2 ) Specific information about each job within the establishment that is similar to one of the jobs covered by the survey, including a brief description of the establishment job, the number of employees in the job, and their rate(s) of pay to the nearest mill (including any cost-of-living adjustments required by contract or that are regular and customary and monetary bonuses that are regular and customary); and
( 3 ) Any other information the lead agency believes is appropriate and useful in determining local prevailing rates.
( c ) The data collectors shall submit the data they collect to the local wage survey committee together with their recommendations about the use of the data.
[46 FR 21344, Apr. 10, 1981, as amended at 55 FR 46140, Nov. 1, 1990. Redesignated at 55 FR 46141, Nov. 1, 1990, as amended at 86 FR 11859, Mar. 1, 2021]
Meeting Summary

Date: June 12, 2013 Place: US EPA; RTP, NC Subject: Dyno Nobel’s (DN) Petition for Reconsideration – NSPS Nitric Acid Plants Attendees: Neil Olsen, Seth Hobby, Barbara Cabot – Dyno Nobel; Richard Stoll, Linda Benfield – Foley & Lardner LLP; Chuck French, Nathan Topham, Bill Neuffer(Grantee) – US EPA/OAQPS/RTP,NC. By phone – Scott Jordan – US EPA/OGC/ Washington, DC; Nathan Frank US EPA/Region V/Chicago, IL This meeting was held to discuss the above mentioned subject. DN discussed their request for US EPA to establish a separate subcategory for existing nitric acid plants with nonselective catalytic reduction(NSCR) that are modified or reconstructed and thus become subject to this NSPS. DN recommended a 2.0 lb of NO x/Ton of 100% nitric acid for these units. DN stated that adding selective catalytic reduction to an NSCR unit would not be cost effective and has never been done. The economizer would have to be removed. Every 90 days the oxidation catalyst has to be replaced. Startup can last from 1 -2 hours. DN’s has CEM data for Cheyenne Unit 3 and agreed to send this data to US EPA.
§ 894.510 When may I decrease my type of enrollment? ( a ) You may decrease your *type of enrollment:* ( 1 ) During the annual open season;
( 2 ) If you have a *QLE* that is consistent with decreasing your *type of enrollment*; or
( 3 ) You are an *enrollee,* and under § 894.403(b) your FEDVIP premiums are not paid on a pre-tax basis, and your *family member* or *TEI family member* becomes eligible for dental or vision benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. An *enrollee* must submit the request within 60 days after notification that your *family member* or *TEI family member is eligible for* dental or vision benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
( b ) Decreasing your *type of enrollment* means going from: ( 1 ) Self and family to self plus one;
( 2 ) Self and family to self only; or
( 3 ) Self plus one to self only.
( c ) ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, you may decrease your *type of enrollment* only during the period beginning 31 days before your QLE and ending 60 days after your QLE.
( 2 ) You may make any of the following enrollment changes at any time beginning 31 days before a QLE listed in § 894.511(a): ( i ) A decrease in your self plus one enrollment;
( ii ) A decrease in your self and family enrollment to a self plus one enrollment, when you have only one remaining eligible *family member* or *TEI family member;* or
( iii ) A decrease in your self and family enrollment to a self only enrollment, when you have no remaining eligible *family members* or *TEI family members.*
( d ) ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, your change in enrollment is effective the first day of the first pay period following the one in which you make the change.
( 2 ) If you are making an enrollment change described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, your change in enrollment is effective on the first day of the first pay period following the QLE on which the enrollment change is based.
( e ) You may not change from one dental or vision plan or option to another, except as stated in § 894.507(b).
[73 FR 50184, Aug. 26, 2008, as amended at 75 FR 20514, Apr. 20, 2010; 83 FR 58180, Nov. 19, 2018; 88 FR 47748-47749, July 25, 2023]
# L_2018207EN.01000101.xml

| 16.8.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 207/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 207/1

---

Notice concerning the entry into force of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Iraq, of the other part

The Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Iraq, of the other part (1), entered into force on 1 August 2018, the procedure provided for in Article 116.1 of the Cooperation Agreement having been completed on 20 July 2018.

1

---

(1)  
  OJ L 204, 31.7.2012, p. 20.

1

---
(May 19, 1949.)

#### Shapiro Bros. Factors Corp. v. Harlem Sugar Co., Inc.

Present — Glennon, J. P., Dore, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ. [192 Misó. 279.]
### §426e–3. Coastal storm damage reduction contracts

For any project for coastal storm damage reduction, the Secretary may seek input from a non-Federal interest for a project that may be affected by the timing of the coastal storm damage reduction activities under the project, in order to minimize, to the maximum extent practicable, any negative effects resulting from the timing of those activities.

(Pub. L. 116–260, div. AA, title I, §140, Dec. 27, 2020, 134 Stat. 2652.)

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

#### "Secretary" Defined

Secretary means the Secretary of the Army, see section 2 of div. AA of Pub. L. 116–260, set out as a note under section 2201 of this title.
#### Mary E. Califano et al., Respondents, v. Horty Management, Inc., Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and MaeCrate, JJ.
* 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

April 21, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-41093

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CARLOS ALBERTO VASQUEZ-HERNANDEZ, 

 

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-03-CR-376-1

--------------------

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Carlos Alberto Vasquez-Hernandez (Vasquez) appeals his

guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States

following deportation and after having been convicted of an

aggravated felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. For the first

time on appeal, Vasquez argues that the sentencing provisions of

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) & (2) are unconstitutional in the light of

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Vasquez

acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres
No. 03-41093

-2-

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), but he seeks to

preserve the issue for Supreme Court review. Apprendi did not

overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
### §400. Continuing authority programs

#### (1) Definition of continuing authority program project

In this section, the term "continuing authority program" means 1 of the following authorities:

(A) Section 701s of this title.

(B) Section 426i of this title.

(C) Section 2330 of this title.

(D) Section 2309a of this title.

(E) Section 577 of this title.

(F) Section 426g of this title.

(G) Section 701r of this title.

(H) Section 103 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 (Public Law 87–874; 76 Stat. 1178).

(I) Section 2326(e) of this title.

(J) Section 701b–8a of this title.

(K) Section 610(a) of this title.

#### (2) Prioritization

Not later than 1 year after June 10, 2014, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register and on a publicly available website, the criteria the Secretary uses for prioritizing annual funding for continuing authority program projects.

#### (3) Annual report

Not later than 1 year after June 10, 2014, and each year thereafter, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register and on a publicly available website, a report on the status of each continuing authority program, which, at a minimum, shall include—

(A) the name and a short description of each active continuing authority program project;

(B) the cost estimate to complete each active project; and

(C) the funding available in that fiscal year for each continuing authority program.

#### (4) Congressional notification

On publication in the Federal Register under paragraphs (2) and (3), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a copy of all information published under those paragraphs.

(Pub. L. 113–121, title I, §1030(a), June 10, 2014, 128 Stat. 1231.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 103 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962, referred to in par. (1)(H), is section 103 of Pub. L. 87–874, title I, Oct. 23, 1962, 76 Stat. 1178. Section 103(a)(1)–(3) of Pub. L. 87–874 amended section 426e of this title. Section 103(a)(4) of Pub. L. 87–874 amended sections 426f and 426g of this title. Section 103(b) of Pub. L. 87–874 is set out as a note under section 426 of this title. Section 103(c) of Pub. L. 87–874 is not classified to the Code.

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

#### "Secretary" Defined

Secretary means the Secretary of the Army, see section 2 of Pub. L. 113–121, set out as a note under section 2201 of this title.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

Certification of ChiefExecutive Officer

 

I, Richard A. Smith,certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-K of Eschelon Telecom, Inc.;

 

2.               Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact

necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;

 

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all

material respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and

procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)             evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal controls over

financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors:

 

a)              allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)             anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 
|   | March 17, 2006 |
|--------|---------------------|
|   |                |   |
|   |                |   |
|   | Sign:               |  /S/        Richard  A. Smith |   |
|   |                | Richard A. Smith |   |
|   |                | President and Chief  Executive Officer |
|        |                     |  |  |  |

 

----
B.C.D. 01-31

MAR 2 9 2001 EMPLOYER STATUS DETERMINATION

KANSAS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY, L.L.C.

This is the determination of the Railroad Retirement Board concerning the

continuing status of Kansas Southwestern Railway, L.L.C. (KSR), B.A. No. 3774, as

an employer under the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C.A. § 231, et seq.) (RRA)

and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act ((45 U.S.C.A. § 351, et sea.)

(RUIA). KSR was ruled to be an employer under the RRA and RUIA effective

April 14, 1991.

On March 31, 2000, pursuant to an agreement and plan of merger, KSR ceased

operations and merged with and into Central Kansas Railway, L.L.C. (CKR) B.A.

No. 2765, with CKR being the surviving company. Employees of KSR last

performed compensated service for KSR on March 31, 2000. KSR employees 

became employees of CKR. KSR was wholly merged into CKR and no longer exists

as an entity according to Michael J. Ogborn, manager, CKR, in his letter to the

Board dated December 29, 2000. Pursuant to Surface Transportation Board

Finance Docket No. 33868, decided April 28, 2000, an exemption from prior review

and approval was granted for this merger.

In view of the foregoing, it is determined that Kansas Southwestern Railway,

L.L.C., ceased to be an employer under the RRA and RUIA on March 31, 2000, the

day it ceased operations and last paid compensation to its employees.

V. M. Speakman, Jr.

BA# 3774
#### Kenneth Clark, an Infant, by His Guardian ad Litem, Albert Clark, et al., Appellants, v. Board of Education of the City of New York, Respondent, et al., Defendants.

No opinion. Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to reinstate the verdict, with the following memorandum: In my opinion a jury question was presented as to the failure of the teacher to give proper instructions. (Cf. *Gardner*v. *State of New York,*281 N. Y. 212.)
99–008

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 107–332

WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST THE CONFERENCE

REPORT TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 2883, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

DECEMBER 11, 2001.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. GOSS, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

R E P O R T

[To accompany H. Res. 312]

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House

Resolution 312, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to the House

with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution waives all points of order against the conference

report to accompany H.R. 2883, the Intelligence Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 2002, and against its consideration.

Æ
### §210305. Governing body

(a) Board of Directors.—The board of directors and the responsibilities of the board are as provided in the articles of incorporation.

(b) Officers.—The officers and the election of officers are as provided in the articles of incorporation.

(c) Nondiscrimination.—The requirements for holding office in the corporation may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1457.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 210305(a) | 36:3006. | Oct. 30, 1984, Pub. L. 98–565, §§5 (words after 3d comma related to discrimination in holding office), 6, 7, 98 Stat. 2920, 2921. |
| 210305(b) | 36:3007. | |
| 210305(c) | 36:3005 (words after 3d comma related to discrimination in holding office). | |

Section

The words "and in conformity with the laws of the State or States in which it is incorporated" in 36:3006 and "and in conformity with the laws of the State or States wherein it is incorporated" in 36:3007 are omitted as unnecessary.
#### RICKENBAKER v. UNITED STATES.

No. 6782.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued June 2, 1954.

Decided June 9, 1954.

J. A. Hutto, Columbia, S. C. (John B. Baltzegar, Jr., Orangeburg, S. C., on brief) for appellant.

Fred G. Folsom, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen. (H. Brian Holland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ellis N. Slack, David L. Luce, Joseph M. Howard and David R. Urdan, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., N. Welch Morrisette, Jr., U. S. Atty., and Irvine F. Belser, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Columbia, S. C., on brief), for appellee.

Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence under an indictment charging income tax evasion for the years 1949 and 1950 in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 145 (b). The contentions presented on appeal are that there was error in refusing to continue the trial of the case and in permitting the appellant to be asked on cross examination whether he thought a man who had been convicted of major crimes was worthy of belief, whether he had been convicted of receiving stolen property, violation of the liquor laws and assault and whether he had incurred legal expense in recent years.

The question of continuance was a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial judge. That matter is not argued in the brief of appellant and nothing is called to our attention indicating that the discretion was abused. While we do not approve parts of the cross examination of which complaint is made, we do not find anything therein which would justify the setting aside of the verdict and the granting of a new trial. It was, of course, competent to show by the cross examination of appellant that he had been convicted of receiving stolen property, as this was a matter going clearly to the question of his credibility. No objection was made to the question as to appellant’s convic*3tion of assault. A more serious question arises as to the competence of the question relating to his conviction for violation of the liquor law for which he received a minor sentence; but we need not go into this, as we think that it could not have affected the result in view of appellant’s admission that he had been convicted of receiving stolen property and of the testimony offered as to his bad character. The other matters complained of, such as asking his opinion as to whether a man who had been convicted of crimes was worthy of belief and asking him as to whether he had recently incurred legal expenses are too insignificant for consideration. While a prosecuting officer should not engage in this sort of cross examination, an appellate court would not be justified in awarding a new trial on account thereof.

Affirmed.
#### Vera Davidowsky, Appellant-Respondent, v. Nick Pappas, Respondent-Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Sneed, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ.
### SUBCHAPTER VI—REGIONAL MEDICAL EDUCATION CENTERS