alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 847.902 How does an election to credit NAFI service for immediate CSRS or FERS retirement under subpart H of this part affect the computation of the CSRS or FERS retirement annuity?

The retirement annuity of an employee who elects to use NAFI service to qualify for an immediate CSRS or FERS retirement benefit will be reduced to ensure the present value of the benefits payable will be actuarially equivalent to those that would have been payable if the employee had separated on the same date, but without credit for the NAFI service.
EXHIBIT 32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Victoria Industries, Inc. a Nevada
corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), Leon Golden, Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
certifies to the best of his knowledge, 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;
and





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





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






Date:
      August 6, 2009By:
            /s/
      Leon GoldenLeon
      GoldenChief
      Financial Officer
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 20 15 - 1998 Directorate ID : 20 14 - SW - 035 - AD Helicopter Model: MD Model 500N and 600N Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 8 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The actions are intended to prevent operation of rotating cone assemblies past their life limits. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 0 Labor per Helicopter ( 1 work- hour x $ 8 5 /workhour to create a component history card and revise the appropriate records. ) $ 85

Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $ 85 Total US Fleet Cost $ 680 Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory

Flexibility

Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Galib Abumeri
| 1. | Such      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009,      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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period      ending June 30, 2009, fairly presents, in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations of China Growth Development,      Inc. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      August 13, 2009                       |
|--------------------------------------------------|
|                                             |
| /s/      Aizhong An                              |
| Aizhong      AnChief Executive      Officer |
### §513. Contracts and personal services

The Secretary may, for purposes of all laws administered by the Department, accept uncompensated services, and enter into contracts or agreements with private or public agencies or persons (including contracts for services of translators without regard to any other law), for such necessary services (including personal services) as the Secretary may consider practicable. The Secretary may also enter into contracts or agreements with private concerns or public agencies for the hiring of passenger motor vehicles or aircraft for official travel whenever, in the Secretary's judgment, such arrangements are in the interest of efficiency or economy.

(Added Pub. L. 102–83, §2(a), Aug. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 389.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 213 of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 102–83, §2(a).
### §7301. Functions of Veterans Health Administration: in general

(a) There is in the Department of Veterans Affairs a Veterans Health Administration. The Under Secretary for Health is the head of the Administration. The Under Secretary for Health may be referred to as the Chief Medical Director.

(b) The primary function of the Administration is to provide a complete medical and hospital service for the medical care and treatment of veterans, as provided in this title and in regulations prescribed by the Secretary pursuant to this title.

(Added Pub. L. 102–40, title IV, §401(a)(3), May 7, 1991, 105 Stat. 211; amended Pub. L. 102–405, title III, §302(c)(1), (2), Oct. 9, 1992, 106 Stat. 1984.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1992—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102–405 substituted "Under Secretary for Health is" for "Chief Medical Director is" and inserted at end "The Under Secretary for Health may be referred to as the Chief Medical Director."
### §3631. Applicability; definitions and updates

(a) Applicability.—This subchapter shall apply with respect to—

(1) priority mail;

(2) expedited mail;

(3) bulk parcel post;

(4) bulk international mail; and

(5) mailgrams;

subject to subsection (d) and any changes the Postal Regulatory Commission may make under section 3642.

(b) Definition.—For purposes of this subchapter, the term "costs attributable", as used with respect to a product, means the direct and indirect postal costs attributable to such product through reliably identified causal relationships.

(c) Rule of Construction.—Mail matter referred to in subsection (a) shall, for purposes of this subchapter, be considered to have the meaning given to such mail matter under the mail classification schedule.

(Added Pub. L. 109–435, title II, §202, Dec. 20, 2006, 120 Stat. 3205.)
### §3306. Certain levee improvements

#### (a) In general

Notwithstanding section 211 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (31 U.S.C. 6505 note), the Secretary, at the request of a local government, is authorized to provide technical services, on a reimbursable basis, to the local government to assess the reasons a federally constructed levee owned or operated by the local government is not accredited by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

#### (b) Federal levees

In carrying out this section, in a case in which a levee owned and operated by the Secretary is hydraulically tied to a levee described in subsection (a), the Secretary is encouraged to cooperate, to the maximum extent practicable, with the relevant local governmental entities in assessing the reasons the levee described in subsection (a) is not accredited.

#### (c) Limitation

Nothing in this section—

(1) affects the responsibilities of a local government to operate and maintain its flood control infrastructure; or

(2) obligates the Secretary to expend additional Federal resources on levees owned and operated by the Secretary.

(Pub. L. 115–270, title I, §1123, Oct. 23, 2018, 132 Stat. 3779.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 211 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, referred to in subsec. (a), is section 211 of Pub. L. 106–541, which is set out as a note under section 6505 of Title 31, Money and Finance.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Water Resources Development Act of 2018, and also as part of the America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, and not as part of the National Levee Safety Act of 2007 which comprises this chapter.

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

#### "Secretary" Defined

Secretary means the Secretary of the Army, see section 102 of Pub. L. 115–270, set out as a note under section 2201 of this title.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

To the Board of Directorsand Stockholders 

of Corio, Inc.: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-45948, 333-63322,333-81600, and 333-103843) on Form S-8 of Corio, Inc. of our report dated January 27, 2003, with respect to the balance sheets of Corio, Inc. as of December 21, 2002 and 2001, and the related statements of operations, stockholders’ equity andcomprehensive loss, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002 and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 2002, annual report on Form 10-K of Corio, Inc.

 

Our report refers to a change in the method ofaccounting for goodwill and other acquired intangible assets in 2002. 

 

 

/s/    KPMG LLP 

 

Mountain View, California 

March 28, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2354 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2354

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the allowance for 
                  burial expenses of certain veterans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 5, 2003

Mr. Case (for himself, Mr. Abercrombie, and Mr. Gibbons) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
                                Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to increase the allowance for 
                  burial expenses of certain veterans.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``State Veterans Cemetery Fairness Act 
of 2003''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE OF ALLOWANCE FOR THE PLOT ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN 
              VETERANS.

    (a) In General.--Section 2303(b)(1)(A) of title 38, United States 
Code, is amended by inserting after ``$300'' the following: ``(or the 
lesser of the actual costs or $750 in the case of a State in which 
ground burial in a national cemetery is not available)''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to deaths occurring on or after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1


                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each of the undersigned, being a
director or officer, or both, of INTERCONEXUS.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby constitute and appoint MEHUL J. DAVE and P.
BALASUBRAMANIAN, with full power to each of them to act alone, as the true and
lawful attorneys and agents of the undersigned, with full power of substitution
and resubstitution to each of said attorneys to execute, file or deliver any and
all instruments and to do all acts and things which said attorneys and agents,
or any of them, deem advisable to enable the Company to comply with the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and any requirements of the
Securities and Exchange Commission in respect thereto, relating to annual
reports on Form 10-KSB or Form 10-K, including specifically, but without
limitation of the general authority hereby granted, the power and authority to
sign his name as a director or officer, or both, of the Company, as indicated
below opposite his signature, to annual reports on Form 10-KSB or Form 10-K or
any amendments or papers supplemental thereto; and each of the undersigned does
hereby fully ratify and confirm all that said attorneys and agents, or any of
them, or the substitute of any of the, shall do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has caused this Power of
Attorney to be executed as of this 22nd day of September, 2000.

                SIGNATURE                            TITLE
                ---------                            -----

     /s/ Mehul J. Dave              Director, Chairman of the Board, President
     ----------------------------   and Chief Executive Officer (Principal
     Mehul J. Dave                  Executive, Financial and Accounting Officer)


     /s/ P. Balasubramanian         Director, Vice President, Secretary and
     ----------------------------   Treasurer
     P. Balasubramanian


     /s/ Robert W. Heller           Director
     ----------------------------
     Robert W. Heller


     /s/ Thomas Mueller             Director
     ----------------------------
     Thomas Mueller


     /s/ Jason W. Levin             Director
     ----------------------------
     Jason W. Levin


     /s/ Utpal J. Dave              Director and Chief Operating Officer
     ----------------------------
     Utpal J. Dave


     /s/ David L. Harris            Director
     ----------------------------
     David L. Harris
EMPLOYER STATUS DETERMINATION

Western Kentucky Railway, L.L.C.

This is the determination of the Railroad Retirement Board

concerning the status of Western Kentucky Railway, L.L.C. (WKR), as

an employer under the Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. § 231 et

sea.) (RRA) and the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C.

§351 et sea.) (RUIA).

Information regarding WKR was provided by Linda Gray of WKR.

According to Ms. Gray WKR began doing business January 1, 1995.

Mr. K. Earl Durden is the chief executive officer of WKR. WKR

currently has 14 employees.

In Interstate Commerce Commission Finance Docket 32642, WKR filed

a notice of exemption to acquire and operate approximately 97 miles

of rail line formerly owned by Costain Coal, Inc., and operated by

Tradewater Railway Company. The rail line is located in Kentucky

and involves two operations: one is a shuttle unit train between a

coal mine and a coal cleaning plant; the second involves transport

of unit coal trains to CSXT. WKR interchanges with Paducah and

Louisville Railway, Inc., and CSXT.

The evidence of record establishes that WKR is a carrier operating

in interstate commerce. Accordingly, it is determined that WKR is

an employer within the meaning of section 1(a) (1) (i) of the

Railroad Retirement Act (45 U.S.C. § 231a (1) (i)) and the

corresponding provision of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act

effective January 1, 1995, the date— on which it commenced

operations.

BCD 1995-65 BA # 5559
#### John Geelan, Respondent, *v.*Southern Boulevard Railroad Company of New York, Respondent, Impleaded with Henry D. Bahr, Appellant, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 28th day of November, 1914, upon the verdict of a jury,, and also from an order entered on the 11th day of December, 1914, denying a motion for a new trial.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.; McLaughlin and Scott, JJ., dissented.

McLaughlin, J. (dissenting):

I think that the court erred in- refusing to charge the jury “ that if the jury find that this accident happened entirely by reason of the fact that the left hand horse shied and forced the wagon over against the car, then under the issues presented in this ease their verdict must be for the defendant Bahr.” I, therefore, dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and order appealed from and for a new trial as to the defendant Bahr. Scott, J., concurred.
### §3326. Report on student progress

(a) Submittal of Information by Educational Institutions.—As a condition of approval under chapter 36 of this title of a course offered by an educational institution (as defined in section 3452 of this title), each year, each educational institution (as so defined) that received a payment in that year on behalf of an individual entitled to educational assistance under this chapter shall submit to the Secretary such information regarding the academic progress of the individual as the Secretary may require.

(b) Reports to Congress.—Not later than March 1 of each year, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report that includes a summary of the information provided by educational institutions under subsection (a) for the calendar year preceding the year during which such report is submitted.

(Added Pub. L. 114–315, title IV, §404(a)(2), Dec. 16, 2016, 130 Stat. 1554; amended Pub. L. 115–48, title I, §114, Aug. 16, 2017, 131 Stat. 985.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2017—Pub. L. 115–48 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted heading, and added subsec. (b).

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 1 year after Dec. 16, 2016, see section 404(c) of Pub. L. 114–315, set out as an Effective Date of 2016 Amendment note under section 3325 of this title.
Satellite Telecommunications in Russia

----

December 1998
by Maria Breiter
At present, the Russian telecommunications market presents great potential for foreign investors,equipment suppliers, and communications operators.  During the past four years, foreigninvestment in this industry has amounted to about US$2.5 billion. 
Satellite systems in the former Soviet Union were designed mainly for military, government, andTV broadcasting purposes; any civilian communications by satellite has primarily been forinternational calls.  As a result, Russia's domestic communications satellites have lagged behindworld standards in transmission capacities, position stability within orbit, and time of usage. However, since the early 1990s, satellite communications have been developing rapidly inRussia.  A significant increase in information traffic is predicted for Russia in the near future, inparticular from Internet users.  
High demand for satellite communications in Russia is due to the country's expansive territoryand the poor condition of its wireline network.  The national satellite network now consists of 12satellite links, owned by the state-owned Russian Satellite Communications Company (RSCC).
Over 700 types of foreign telecommunications equipment have been certified for the Russiantelecommunications market, and more than 20 telecommunications companies from the UnitedStates, Western Europe, and Asia have obtained licenses for service provision, including Alcatel,AT&T, Ericsson, Motorola, NEC, Nokia, Qualcomm, Samsung, and Siemens.
**Space and Ground Segments**
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Caryn B. Kaplan, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Jay Asher, Respondent. </font></b></div><br><br><p>Caryn B. Kaplan, appellant pro se.Dr. Jay A. Asher, DDS, respondent pro se.</p><p>Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Second District (Scott H. Siller, J.), entered August 15, 2018. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the action.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs. </p><p>Plaintiff commenced this small claims action against defendant, her former landlord, to recover the principal sum of $2,250 paid under a lease agreement. Following a nonjury trial, the District Court dismissed the action. </p><p>In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UDCA 1807; <i>see</i> UDCA 1804; <i>Ross v Friedman</i>, 269 AD2d 584, 584 [2000]; <i>Williams v Roper</i>, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). Furthermore, the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as a trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility (<i>see Vizzari v State of New York</i>, 184 AD2d 564, 564 [1992]; <i>Kincade v Kincade</i>, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). This deference applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (<i>see Williams v Roper</i>, 269 AD2d at 126).</p><p>It is undisputed that plaintiff executed a lease with defendant on July 11, 2017 and signed an agreement with defendant terminating that lease on July 28, 2017. The record supports the District Court's implicit finding of an agreement that, in return for the termination of the lease, defendant would be allowed to refund only $2,250 of the $4,500 that plaintiff had paid, thereby holding plaintiff responsible for one month's rent.  Since it is uncontroverted that plaintiff received a refund of $2,250, the District Court properly dismissed the action, providing the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (<i>see</i> UDCA 1804, 1807; <i>Ross v Friedman</i>, 269 AD2d at 584; <i>Williams v Roper</i>, 269 AD2d at 126).</p><p>Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. </p><p>ADAMS, P.J., TOLBERT and GARGUILO, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: January 02, 2020<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>