alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2255 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2255

      To extend the suspension of certain payments to be made by 
noncommercial webcasters under sections 112 and 114 of title 17, United 
                  States Code, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 22, 2003

 Mr. Price of North Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To extend the suspension of certain payments to be made by 
noncommercial webcasters under sections 112 and 114 of title 17, United 
                  States Code, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN PAYMENTS.

    Section 3(a)(1) of the Small Webcaster Settlement Act of 2002 
(Public Law 107-321) is amended by striking ``2003'' and inserting 
``2004''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR SETTLEMENTS.

    Section 114(f)(5)(F) of title 17, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``2003'' and inserting ``2004''.
                                 <all>
```
OPENING REMARKS OF NRC CHAIRMAN GREGORY JACZKO AT THE 

BRIEFING ON PART 35 MEDICAL EVENT DEFINITIONS –

PERMANENT IMPLANT BRACHYTHERAPY

Good morning everyone. We are here today to discuss the medical event definitions for 

permanent implant brachytherapy with representatives from the Advisory Committee on the 

Medical Uses of Isotopes, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, the American 

Brachytherapy Society, and the Organization of Agreement States, as well as the NRC staff. 

Creating a precise and yet workable medical event definition for permanent implant 

brachytherapy has been a challenging issue for the NRC. 

The Commission directed the staff to develop a medical event definition that protects the 

interests of patients and allows doctors the flexibility to take actions that they believe are 

medically necessary, while at the same time allows the NRC to ensure the safe use of nuclear 

materials. The staff undertook this effort with substantial input from the medical community, 

state regulators, patient advocates, and other interested individuals to get all perspectives on this 

issue. We are interested to hear your recommendations as the Commission prepares to move 

forward in this matter. 

###

News releases are available through a free Listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES 

link on the NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are 

posted to NRC's website. For the latest news, follow the NRC on www.twitter.com/NRCgov.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

E-mail: opa.resource@nrc.gov Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov

No. 12-042 April 24, 2012
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ProUroCare Medical Inc.
(the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard
C. Carlson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Richard B. Thon,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of our knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, 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 operation of the
      Company.








/s/ Richard C.
Carlson


Richard
C. Carlson


Chief
Executive Officer


November
12, 2010








/s/ Richard B.
Thon


Richard
B. Thon


Chief
Financial Officer


November
12, 2010
Registering a Company in Ukraine

----

**November 1998**
by Maxim Bougriy 
There are three basic forms of business organization a U.S. company can use to establish apresence in Ukraine: representative office, wholly owned subsidiary, or joint venture with aUkrainian company.  There are pros and cons to each option, and each entails a specific processand price of registration.  
The majority of foreign companies in Ukraine operate through a representative office.  By law, arepresentative office is not a legal entity and its activities are limited to representation, marketresearch, and making preparations for business operations.  For a foreign company exporting toUkraine, one benefit of having a representative office is that the local customer can be required tohandle customs procedures and duties, thus avoiding the 30 percent profit tax. The disadvantagesof a representative office include the difficulties the company may face in marketing anddistributing of its products, as it is illegal for a representative office to perform these functions.  Inaddition, a representative office cannot sign contracts in its own name. 
In many cases, foreign companies, especially those involved in large-scale manufacturing and/ordistribution, will need to establish either a Ukrainian subsidiary or a joint venture.  Subsidiariesand joint ventures can be registered either as a limited liability company (LLC) or a joint-stockcompany (JSC) (closed or open).  By assuming any of these forms of representation, the foreigncompany becomes subject to Ukrainian commercial law and needs to register in the same way as aUkrainian company registers. 
**Registering a Representative Office**
B.C.D. 02-21

EMPLOYER STATUS DETERMINATION

Jaxport Terminal Railway Company, Inc.

MAR 0 8 2002

This is the decision ofthe Railroad Retirement Board regarding the continued status

ofthe Jaxport Terminal Railway Company, Inc., (B.A. No. 4568) as an employer

under the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. § 231 et seep) (RRA) and the Railroad

Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. § 351 et seep) (RUIA).

Jaxport was held to be an employer under the Acts effective March 19, 1990.

Jaxport’s operations were taken over on July 27, 1996, by Talleyrand Terminal

Railroad Company, Inc., a covered employer under the Acts since February 19, 1996

(B.A. No. 5565). Compensated sendee was last reported for Jaxport on

July 27, 1996. The Board’s attempts to contact persons associated with Jaxport have

been unsuccessful.

Section 202.11 ofthe Board's regulations provides that:

The employer status of any company or person shall terminate

whenever such company or person loses any ofthe characteristics

essential to the existence of an employer status. (20 CFR 202.11)

Information in the file indicates that as of October 16, 1996, all assets ofJaxport

Terminal Railway Company had been sold or would be sold to various individuals

and/or companies to cover remaining indebtedness. The evidence ofrecord indicates

that Jaxport Terminal Railway Company no longer has the capacity to operate a

railroad.

Accordingly, the Board holds that Jaxport ceased to be an employer under the

Railroad Retirement and Railroad Unemployment Insurance Acts effective with the

close of business on July 27, 1996.

Cherrvl T/Thomas

V. M. Speakman, Jr.

BA# 4568
§ 919.120 May we grant an exception to let an excluded person participate in a covered transaction? ( a ) The Debarring Official may grant an exception permitting an excluded person to participate in a particular covered transaction. If the Debarring Official grants an exception, the exception must be in writing and state the reason(s) for deviating from the governmentwide policy in Executive Order 12549.
( b ) An exception granted by one agency for an excluded person does not extend to the covered transactions of another agency.
```

[House Report 107-343]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    107-343

======================================================================

 
WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 
  CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON 
  RULES

                                _______
                                

  December 19 (legislative day, December 18), 2001.--Referred to the 
                House Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Diaz-Balart, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 318]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 318, by a nonrecord vote to report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                summary of provisions of the resolution

    The resolution waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a 
two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is 
reported from the Rules Committee) against certain resolutions 
reported from the Rules Committee. The rule applies the waiver 
to any special rule reported on the legislative day of 
Wednesday, December 19, 2001, providing for consideration or 
disposition of a conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 
2506) making appropriations for foreign operations, export 
financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2002, and for other purposes.

                                  

```
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Marco Community Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Thomas M. Whelan, Senior Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by § 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. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for
the period covered by the report.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                         |  |                                                                    
|------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 12, 2004 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    THOMAS M. WHELAN
|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                         | 
|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                         |  | Thomas M. Whelan, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
### §717. Limitation on administrative leave

(a) In General.—Except as provided in subsection (b), the Secretary may not place any covered individual on administrative leave, or any other type of paid non-duty status without charge to leave, for more than a total of 14 days during any 365-day period.

(b) Waiver.—The Secretary may waive the limitation under subsection (a) and extend the administrative leave or other paid non-duty status without charge to leave of a covered individual placed on such leave or status under subsection (a) if the Secretary submits to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and House of Representatives a detailed explanation of the reasons the individual was placed on administrative leave or other paid non-duty status without charge to leave and the reasons for the extension of such leave or status. Such explanation shall include the job title and grade of the covered individual and the location where the individual is employed.

(c) Covered Individual.—In this section, the term "covered individual" means an employee of the Department—

(1) who is subject to an investigation for purposes of determining whether such individual should be subject to any disciplinary action under this title or title 5; or

(2) against whom any disciplinary action is proposed or initiated under this title or title 5.

(Added Pub. L. 114–315, title V, §503(a)(1), Dec. 16, 2016, 130 Stat. 1568.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Prior sections 717 and 718 were renumbered sections 1917 and 1918 of this title, respectively.

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 114–315, title V, §503(b), Dec. 16, 2016, 130 Stat. 1568, provided that: "Section 717 of title 38, United States Code, as added by subsection (a)(1), shall apply with respect to any 365-day period beginning on or after the date of enactment of this Act [Dec. 16, 2016]."
NRC RESCHEDULES MEETING TO DISCUSS SAFETY 

PERFORMANCE OF HONEYWELL METROPOLIS FACILITY 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s public meeting in Metropolis, Ill., to discuss its 

latest safety evaluation at the Honeywell Specialty Chemicals Plant, has been rescheduled for

Monday, May 23. The meeting was originally scheduled for May 9 but was postponed due to 

flooding in Metropolis.

The Honeywell plant processes uranium for use in commercial nuclear power plant fuel.

The meeting is scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. CDT at the Massac County Courthouse, 1 

Superman Square, in Metropolis. The public can observe the business portion of the meeting and 

NRC staff will be available after that session to answer questions or provide further information 

about NRC oversight of the facility.

 The NRC’s evaluation of Honeywell, called a Licensee Performance Review, covered a 

period beginning January 7, 2010, and ending December 31, 2010. The review covered 

performance at the plant in the areas of Safety Operations, Safeguards, Radiological Controls, 

Facility Support and Special Topics. 

 The review found that Honeywell continued to operate safely and securely and did not 

identify any areas in need of specific improvement. However, the NRC said that the agency 

plans to perform some additional inspection activities beyond those required by the plant’s core 

inspection program. The NRC will also conduct the next review over a 12-month period. 

 The NRC letter to Honeywell discussing the performance review is available by going to 

the NRC website at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html and entering the document 

number ML110660054.

 

###

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's website.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region II

245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE, Suite 1200

Atlanta, GA 30303-1257

Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov

No: II-11-032

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 997-4417

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416

 May 5, 2011

E-mail: OPA2.Resource@nrc.gov
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Alf Freddie Clark, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 73-300;

Third District

July 31, 1974.

James Geis, of the State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Ottawa, for appellant.

F. Jack Nathan, Assistant State’s Attorney, of Rock Island, for the People.

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE SCOTT

delivered the opinion of the court:

The defendant, Alf Freddie Clark, was indicted by a Rock Island County grand jury for the crime of armed robbery. Pursuant to plea negotiations the defendant pleaded guilty to the crime and was sentenced to a term of not less than 4 nor more than 8 years to the Illinois Department of Corrections.

In this appeal the defendant urges *inter alia*that the trial court committed error in accepting his guilty plea without informing him of the nature of the charges against him.

Supreme Court Rule 402 (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 110A, §402) has been in existence since 1970. Its language is straightforward, explicit and uncomplicated. Among other things, it commands that “The Court shall not accept a plea of guilty without first, by addressing the defendant personally in open court, informing him of and determining that he understands the following: (1) the nature of the charge ****

In examining the record we find that counsel for the defendant during the course of the arraignment did utter the words “armed robbery” and that in addition the following colloquy occurred:

> *317“Court: That you had a knife and took $80.00 from that individual, that’s true?

> Defendant: Yes.”

There was no reading of the indictment to the defendant nor any explanation offered by the court as to the acts and intent which necessarily must be present to sustain the commission of the crime of armed robbery.

We can only conclude that the remarks made by defense counsel and the court at the time of the arraignment are too minimal to adequately inform the defendant as to the nature of the charge against him. (See *People v. Hawkins,*17 Ill.App.3d 863, 309 N.E.2d 60; *People v. Green,*17 Ill.App.3d 918, 309 N.E.2d 75.) Supreme Court Rule 402 was designed to obviate the precise problems which this record presents. We fail to find compliance with the rule, and for that reason this case must be reversed and remanded to the circuit court of Rock Island County with directions that the defendant be permitted to plead anew.

Having made this determination it becomes unnecessary for us to consider a further assignment of error raised by the defendant.

Reversed and remanded.

DIXON and STOUDER, JJ., concur.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6043

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DACEY MAURICE JONES , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Thomas D. Schroeder , Chief District Judge. ( 1:13

- cr - 00405

- TDS

- 1; 1:16

- cv - 00198

- TDS

- LPA )

Submitted : May 28, 2019 Decided: June 5, 2019

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by un published per curiam opinion

. Dacey Maurice Jones, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Dacey Maurice Jones appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss Jones’ 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and deny his motions to amend . In its order, the court stated that Jones failed to object to the report and recommendation. On appeal, Jones claims that he never received the report and recommendation

. A party who fails to timely object in writing to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is not entitled to de novo review of the magistrate judge’s determinations by the district court and is barred from contesting those determinations on appeal. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2012). However, the waiver of appellate rights for failing to object is a prudential rule, not a jurisdictional requirement. Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985). And , when a litigant is proceeding pro se, he must be accorded fair notice of the consequences of failing to object before he is barred from appellate review. Wright , 766 F.2d at 84 6

- 4 7

. From the present record, we cannot conclusively determine whether Jones received a copy of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Accordingly, we
vacate the district court’s order and remand for the court to make this determination in the first instance. If the court find Jones’ claim to be credible, it should provide him with a copy of the report and recommendation and accord him an opportunity to object. If, however, the court finds that Jones received the report and recommendation, it may reenter its original order, with any necessary modifications.3 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argume nt would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
### [§205. Repealed. Pub. L. 91–217, §1(7), Mar. 19, 1970, 84 Stat. 75]

Section, act June 25, 1948, ch. 644, 62 Stat. 680, provided for appointment of members of White House Police force in accordance with civil service laws.
Regional Corner: ChitaOblast, Russia

----
Editorial Note on Part 20
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 68 FR 51355, Aug. 26, 2003.

§ 20.19 Private lawsuits after exhaustion of administrative remedies. ( a ) A complainant may file a civil action following the exhaustion of administrative remedies under the Act. Administrative remedies are exhausted if: ( 1 ) 180 days have elapsed since the complainant filed the complaint and DOC has made no finding with regard to the complaint; or
( 2 ) DOC issues any finding in favor of the recipient.
( b ) If DOC fails to make a finding within 180 days or issues a finding in favor of recipient, DOC shall: ( 1 ) Promptly advise the complainant of this fact; and
( 2 ) Advise the complainant of his or her right to bring civil action for injunctive relief; and
( 3 ) Inform the complainant that: ( i ) The complainant may bring a civil action only in a United States district court for the district in which the recipient is located or transacts business;
( ii ) A complainant prevailing in a civil action has the right to be awarded the costs of the action, including reasonable attorney's fees, but that the complainant must demand these costs in the complaint;
( iii ) Before commencing the action, the complainant shall give 30 days notice by registered mail to the Secretary, the Attorney General of the United States, and the recipient;
( iv ) The notice shall contain the alleged violation of the Act, the relief requested, the court in which the complainant is bringing the action, and whether or not attorney's fees are demanded in the event the complainant prevails; and
( v ) The complainant may not bring an action if the same alleged violation of the Act by the same recipient is the subject of a pending action in any court of the United States.