alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U n i t e d S t a t e s G o v e r n m e n t FORM 0-1151 (1-13)

R a i l r o a d R e t i r e m e n t b o a r d M e m o r a n d u m

L - 95-7

MAR 03 1995

FROM:

TO: Director of Retirement and Survivor Programs

Catherine C. Cook ( fi 

General Counsel '

SUBJECT: Penalty Deductions

This is in response to your memorandum dated January 23, 1995, 

wherein you asked whether you may change the method of recovering 

penalty deductions imposed when an individual fails to report 

his/her excess earnings to conform the method of recovery to that 

used by the Social Security Administration. For the following 

reasons, it is my opinion that the Office of Retirement and 

Survivor Programs may make such a change.

Deductions for excess earnings under the Railroad Retirement Act 

are provided for in section 2(f)(1) of the Act (45 U.S.C.

§ 23la(f) (1)) . That section in so far as is relevant to your 

inquiry provides that portions of retirement and spouse annuities 

are subject to excess earnings in the "same manner as if such 

portion of such annuity were a monthly insurance benefit under that 

Act[Social Security Act]". Section 2(f)(1) specifically provides 

that the reduction should be made in accord with section 203 of the 

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 403). Section 203 provides that 

a penalty deduction, equal to one month's benefit for the first 

failure to file, should be made if the person fails to timely 

report his/her excess earnings. See section 203(g) of the Social 

Security Act and 20 CFR 404.453. Under 20 CFR 404.454, before the 

penalty may be imposed, notice must be given the annuitant of the 

proposed imposition and the annuitant must be given the opportunity 

to show good cause for failure to file a timely report.

You propose to modify the current method of treating the penalty as 

a separate item and propose instead to combine it with the 

overpayment due to excess earnings as does the Social Security 

Administration. You state that revising the RRB's current 

procedure to conform to that of the Social Security Administration 

"would facilitate the processing of overpayment cases involving age 

and service penalty deductions.1,1

1 For purposes of defining "overpayment" for waiver 

purposes the "overpayment" does not include the penalty. 20 CFR 

404.501(a). Thus, if the annuitant cannot show good cause under

(continued...)
2

Director of Retirement and Survivor Programs

Since the RRB is to assess work deductions and penalty deductions 

in the same manner as does the Social Security Administration 

pursuant to section 203 of the Social Security Act, I would have no 

objection to your modifying your procedure to conform that 

procedure to that utilized by the Social Security Administration.

cc: Chief Financial Officer

Director of Retirement Benefits

1 (...continued)

section 404.454, then the penalty may not be waived even though the 

remaining deductions in benefits caused by the excess earnings may 

be waived under section 10(c) of the RRA. Cf. Legal Opinion 

L-77-686.
§ 847.104 OPM responsibilities. ( a ) OPM will issue guidance to employing agencies to use when notifying their employees about the opportunity to make an election under this part and for counseling employees in connection with the election.
( b ) OPM will issue instructions to agencies concerning the transfer of funds and recordkeeping in connection with these elections.
( c ) OPM will determine if an employee who wishes to make an election under 5 CFR part 847, subpart H, is eligible to make such an election, and OPM's determination is subject to reconsideration under 5 CFR part 831, subpart A, or 5 CFR part 841, subpart C.
[61 FR 41721, Aug. 9, 1996, as amended at 68 FR 2179, Jan. 16, 2003]
### **CHAPTER 59—AGENTS AND ATTORNEYS**

Sec.
5901.
Prohibition against acting as claims agent or attorney.
5902.
Recognition of representatives of organizations.
5903.
Recognition with respect to particular claims.
5904.
Recognition of agents and attorneys generally.
5905.
Penalty for certain acts.
5906.
Availability of legal assistance at Department facilities.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2021**—Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title V, §548(a)(2), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 3618, added item 5906.

**1991**—Pub. L. 102–40, title IV, §402(c)(1), May 7, 1991, 105 Stat. 239, renumbered items 3401 to 3405 as 5901 to 5905, respectively.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO FURNISHED PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. § 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ikanos Communications, Inc. (the
Company) for the quarterly period ended June 29, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of Michael Gulett, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company,
and Cory J. Sindelar, Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and

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



|                      |  |  |  |                             |  |                      |  |                                                                                                         
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------- |  | -------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  |  |  | IKANOS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
|                      |  |  | 
|Dated: August 7, 2008 |  |  |  | By:                         |  | /s/ MICHAEL GULETT  
|                      |  |  |  |                             |  |                      |  | Michael Gulett President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)                      
|                      |  |  | 
|Dated: August 7, 2008 |  |  |  | By:                         |  | /s/ CORY J. SINDELAR
|                      |  |  |  |                             |  |                      |  | Cory J. Sindelar Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 219 / Monday, November 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 67039

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

20 CFR Part 404 

Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating 

Hematological Disorders and 

Malignant Neoplastic Diseases

AGENCY: Social Security Administration.

ACTION: Proposed rule; partial 

withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: We are withdrawing the rules 

we proposed for evaluating 

hematological disorders that were 

included in the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) published in the 

Federal Register on November 27, 2001 

(66 FR 59306). In that NPRM, we 

proposed revisions to both the listings 

for hematological disorders and the 

listings for malignant neoplastic 

diseases. The public comments we 

received on the NPRM raised significant 

issues about the proposed listings for 

some of the hematological disorders, 

and we have decided to withdraw the 

proposed rules for hematological 

disorders while we obtain additional 

input to resolve these issues. We plan to 

publish a new NPRM for the 

hematological disorders listings at a 

later date. We are publishing separately 

in today’s edition of the Federal 

Register final rules for evaluating 

malignant neoplastic diseases.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Martin Sussman, Regulations Officer, 

Office of Regulations, Social Security 

Administration, 100 Altmeyer Building, 

6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21235–6401, (410) 965–1767 

or TTY (410) 966–5609. For information 

on eligibility or filing for benefits, call 

our national toll-free number, 1–800–

772–1213 or TTY 1–800–325–0778, or 

visit our Internet Web site, Social 

Security Online, at http://

www.socialsecurity.gov/.

Dated: July 19, 2004. 

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, 

Commissioner of Social Security.

[FR Doc. 04–24898 Filed 11–12–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P
AFS-16-8451-E April 15, 2016

Exemption No. 10975A Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2001-9791

Mr. Eugene A. Nock

President/Chief Pilot NockAir Helicopters, Inc.

835 Tarawitt Drive Longboat Key, FL 34228

Dear Mr. Nock:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 10975. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated February 18, 2016, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of NockAir Helicopters, Inc. (NAHI) for an extension of Exemption No. 10975. That exemption from § 133.43(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows NAHI to use its helicopters to perform aerial trapeze acts without using an approved external-load attachment or quick-release device for carrying persons on a trapeze bar.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to NAHI.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10975 remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the2

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant NockAir Helicopter, Inc. (NAHI) an exemption from 14 CFR § 133.43 (a) and (b) to allow NAHI to use its helicopters to perform aerial trapeze acts without using an approved external-load attachment or quick-release device for carrying persons on a trapeze bar, subject to the conditions and limitations listed below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. NAHI may only use this grant of exemption for carrying person(s) who are practicing or performing trapeze acts in an airshow or a special event.

2. Before carrying person(s) on the trapeze, NAHI must provide a copy of this grant of exemption to those persons.

3. NAHI must inform the pilot that the trapeze equipment is not attached to the quickrelease device.

4. Before each performance and practice of an aerial trapeze act, the pilot and trapeze artist(s) will discuss and agree on actions of the pilot and trapeze artist(s) on emergencies procedures.

5. NAHI may only exercise the privileges of this grant of exemption while within sterile areas that allow an emergency landing wit hout undue hazard to person(s) or property on the surface that are not directly associated with the operations.

6. This exemption is not valid for operations outside of the United States.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 10975, as amended, to April 30, 2018, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

//s//

John Barbagallo Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service
§ 900.407 Conduct of investigations. ( a ) *Periodic compliance reviews.* OPM may from time to time review the practices of recipients to determine whether they are complying with this subpart.
( b ) *Complaints.* Any person who believes himself or any specific class of persons to be subjected to discrimination prohibited by this subpart may by himself or by a representative file with the Director, Office of Personnel Management a written complaint. A complaint shall be filed not later than 90 days after the date of the alleged discrimination, unless the time for filing is extended by OPM.
( c ) *Investigations.* OPM will make a prompt investigation whenever a compliance review, report, complaint, or other information indicates a possible failure to comply with this subpart. The investigation will include, when appropriate, a review of the pertinent practices and policies of the recipient, the circumstances under which the possible noncompliance with this subpart occurred, and other factors relevant to a determination as to whether the recipient has failed to comply with this subpart.
( d ) *Resolution of matters.* ( 1 ) If an investigation pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section indicates a failure to comply with this subpart, OPM will so inform the recipient and the matter will be resolved by voluntary means whenever possible. If it has been determined that the matter cannot be resolved by voluntary means, action will be taken as provided for in § 900.408.
( 2 ) If an investigation does not warrant action pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section, OPM will so inform, in writing, the recipient and the complainant, if any.
( e ) *Intimidatory or retaliatory acts prohibited.* A recipient or other person shall not intimidate, threaten, coerce, or discriminate against an individual for the purpose of interfering with a right or privilege secured by section 601 of title VI or this subpart, or because he has made a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subpart. The identity of complainants shall be kept confidential; except to the extent necessary to carry out the purposes of this subpart, including the conduct of an investigation, hearing, or judicial proceeding arising thereunder.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6015

ROBB M. HARKSEN, Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. T. PEASE, Mailroom Officer; D. A. BRAXTON; S. SHORTRIDGE, Operations Officer; R. A. YOUNG, Regional Director; L. HUFFMAN, Regional Director; S. MULLINS, Treatment Program Supervisor; S. BUNCH, Mailroom Officer; J. ARMENTROUT, Assistant Warden Operations; G. DEEL; T. HALE, Corrections Officer; T. WOODS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CA-04-243) Submitted: May 21, 2008 Decided: June 27, 2008 Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robb M. Harksen, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Robb M. Harksen appeals the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice his action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000), and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. Harksen asserted, inter alia , that he was denied free or gift publications in violation of the First Amendment. The district court held that the prison regulation banning receipt of free or gift publications was constitutional. However, the case on which the district court relied to reach that conclusion was reversed on appeal. See Zimmerman v. Simmons , 260 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (D. Kan. 2003) (applying four-part test in Turner v. Safley , 482 U.S. 78 (1987), and concluding that regulation banning receipt of gift publications was constitutional), rev’d sub nom. Jacklovich v. Simmons , 392 F.3d 420, 428-32 (10th Cir. 2004) (finding genuine issues of material fact existed regarding behavior management and security rationales proffered by defendants in support of policy denying access to publications and to remaining Turnerfactors); see also Prison Legal News v. Lehman , 397 F.3d 692, 698-701 (9th Cir. 2005) (applying Turner and holding that ban on nonsubscription bulk mail and catalogs requested by inmate was unconstitutional). Although we express no view on the merits, we conclude that it is appropriate to vacate the district court’s summary dismissal of Harksen’s First Amendment claims regarding receipt of free or gift publications. On remand the district court should consider the- 3 - state’s justification for its regulation and resolve any factual issues relevant to the merits of Harksen’s claims. With regard to Harksen’s remaining claims, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm those claims for the reasons stated by the district court. Harksen v. Braxton , No. 7:04-cv-00243 (W.D. Va. Nov. 9, 2004; Dec. 10, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT JUSTIN FLETCHER STUEVE,

Appellant,
v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D21-3802 September 1, 2023 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Mark D. Kiser, Judge. Rachael E. Reese and Olivia M. Nathan of O'Brien Hatfield Reese, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Michael W. Mervine, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. KELLY, LUCAS, and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
### §170304. Membership

(a) Eligibility.—Eligibility for membership in the corporation and the rights and privileges of members are as provided in the constitution and bylaws of the corporation.

(b) Nondiscrimination.—The terms of membership may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1443.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 170304(a) | 36:3605 (words before 1st comma). | Oct. 7, 1985, Pub. L. 99–119, §5 (words before 1st comma, words after 1st comma related to discrimination in membership), 99 Stat. 499. |
| 170304(b) | 36:3605 (words after 1st comma related to discrimination in membership). | |

Section
**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**

|  | 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                Registrant. |
|--|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                              |                                                                                                |                                    |
|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                         |                                                                                           |                               |
| Date:              April 18, 2007 | By:                                                                                       | /s/ Richard              D. Gaines |
|                              | Name: Richard              D. Gaines                                                           |
|                              | Title: Acting                Principal Executive Officer Secretary                and Director |

----
§ 841.503 Amounts of employee deductions. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the rate of employee deductions from basic pay for FERS coverage is seven percent of basic pay minus the percent of tax which is (or would be) in effect for the payment, for the employee cost of social security.
( b ) The rate of employee deductions from basic pay for FERS coverage for a Member, law enforcement officer, firefighter, nuclear materials courier, customs and border protection officer, air traffic controller, member of the Supreme Court Police, Congressional employee, or employee under section 302 of the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1964 for Certain Employees (who are not FERS RAE or FERS FRAE employees or Members, as defined under § 841.103 of this part), is seven and one-half percent of basic pay, minus the percent of tax which is (or would be) in effect for the payment, for the employee cost of social security.
( c ) After December 31, 2012, the rate of employee deductions from basic pay for— ( 1 ) A FERS RAE employee, Member, or Congressional employee is nine and three-tenths percent of basic pay, minus the percent of tax which is (or would be) in effect for the payment, for the employee cost of social security.
( 2 ) A FERS RAE law enforcement officer, firefighter, nuclear materials courier, customs and border protection officer, air traffic controller, member of the Supreme Court Police, or employee under section 302 of the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1964 for Certain Employees is nine and eight-tenths percent of basic pay, minus the percent of tax which is (or would be) in effect for the payment, for the employee cost of social security.
( d ) After December 31, 2013, the rate of employee deductions from basic pay for— ( 1 ) FERS FRAE employee, Member, or Congressional employee is ten and six-tenths percent basic pay, minus the percent of tax which is (or would be) in effect for the payment, for the employee cost of social security.
( 2 ) A FERS FRAE law enforcement officer, firefighter, nuclear materials courier, customs and border protection officer, air traffic controller, member of the Supreme Court Police, or employee under section 302 of the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1964 for Certain Employees is eleven and one-tenth percent of basic pay, minus the percent of tax which is (or would be) in effect for the payment, for the employee cost of social security.
( e ) Employee deductions will be at the rate in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section as if social security deductions were being made even if social security deductions have ceased because of the amount of earnings during the year, or are not made for any other reason.
[88 FR 31468, May 17, 2023]
### §140712. Annual report

The corporation shall submit an annual report to Congress on the activities of the corporation during the prior fiscal year. The report shall be submitted at the same time as the report of the audit required by section 10101 of this title. The report may not be printed as a public document.

(Pub. L. 105–225, Aug. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 1386.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 140712 | 36:5012. | Oct. 23, 1992, Pub. L. 102–484, title XVIII, §1813, 106 Stat. 2583. |

Section
##### 



Certificate pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  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/ George P. ScanlonName:
    
    George P. ScanlonTitle:
    
    Chief Financial OfficerDate:
    
    August 7, 2006
 54