alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 838.134 Receipt of multiple court orders. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, for court orders affecting employee annuities or awarding former spouse survivor annuities, in the event that OPM receives two or more court orders acceptable for processing— ( 1 ) When the court orders relate to two or more individuals (former spouses or child abuse creditors), the court orders will be honored in the order in which they were received by OPM to the maximum extent possible under § 838.211 or § 838.711.
( 2 ) When two or more court orders relate to the same former spouse, separated spouse, or child abuse creditor the one issued last will be honored.
( b ) ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, for court orders affecting refunds of employee contributions, in the event that OPM receives two or more court orders acceptable for processing— ( i ) When the court orders affect two or more former spouses— ( A ) The refund will not be paid if either court order prohibits payment of the refund of contributions; otherwise,
( B ) The court orders will be honored in the order in which they were issued until the contributions have been exhausted.
( ii ) When two or more court orders relate to the same former spouse, the one issued last will be honored first.
( 2 ) In no event will the amount paid out exceed the amount of the refund of employee contributions.
( c ) With respect to issues relating to the validity of a court order or to the amount of payment— ( 1 ) If the employee, separated employee, retiree, or other person adversely affected by the court order and former spouse submit conflicting court orders from the same jurisdiction, OPM will consider only the latest court order; or
( 2 ) If the employee, separated employee, retiree, or other person adversely affected by the court order and former spouse submit conflicting court orders from different jurisdictions— ( i ) If one of the court orders is from the jurisdiction shown as the employee's, separated employee's, or retiree's address in OPM's records, OPM will consider only the court order issued by that jurisdiction; or
( ii ) If none of the court orders is from the jurisdiction shown as the employee's, separated employee's, or retiree's address in OPM's records, OPM will consider only the latest court order.
[57 FR 33574, July 29, 1992, as amended at 59 FR 66638, Dec. 28, 1994]
§ 700.31 General procedures. Before the Department of Commerce uses its allocations authority to address a supply problem within its resource jurisdiction, it will develop a plan that includes: ( a ) A copy of the written determination made in accordance with section 202 of Executive Order 13603, that the program or programs that would be supported by the allocation action are necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense;
( b ) A detailed description of the situation to include any unusual events or circumstances that have created the requirement for an allocation action;
( c ) A statement of the specific objective(s) of the allocation action;
( d ) A list of the materials, services, or facilities to be allocated;
( e ) A list or description of the sources of the materials, services, or facilities that will be subject to the allocation action;
( f ) A detailed description of the provisions that will be included in the allocation orders, including the type(s) of allocation orders, the percentages or quantity of capacity or output to be allocated for each purpose, the relationship with previously or subsequently received priority rated and unrated contracts and orders, and the duration of the allocation action (*e.g.,* anticipated start and end dates);
( g ) An evaluation of the impact of the proposed allocation action on the civilian market; and
( h ) Proposed actions, if any, to mitigate disruptions to civilian market operations.
[79 FR 47567, Aug. 14, 2014, as amended at 89 FR 58972, July 22, 2024]
Exhibit 32.1



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 June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), I, Richard Storm, Jr., Chief Executive 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: August 13, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Richard Storm, Jr.                     
|                      |  |     |  | Richard Storm, Jr., Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Ceasar Colucci, Respondent.

[821 NYS2d 271]

Appeal by the People from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Weber, J.), dated September 26, 2005, which, upon granting an application by the defendant for an in camera inspection of the minutes of the grand jury proceeding, dismissed the indictment with leave to the People to resubmit the case to another grand jury.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, the indictment *1045is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, for further proceedings on the indictment.

At the grand jury presentation, a grand juror asked the prosecutor how information about the underlying events came to the attention of the District Attorney’s office, and why it “took so long” for the charges to be presented. The prosecutor informed the jurors that this information was not relevant to their consideration. The County Court determined that the prosecutor’s answers to the grand juror’s inquiries undermined the integrity of the proceeding and necessitated dismissal of the indictment. Specifically, it concluded that the prosecutor prevented the grand jury from assessing the credibility of the child victim’s testimony and interfered with the jury’s independent judgment as to whether there were other witnesses who could assist in weighing the credibility of the allegations. We conclude that the prosecutor’s failure under these circumstances did not necessitate dismissal of the indictment.

The District Attorney “[w]here necessary or appropriate . . . must instruct the grand jury concerning the law with respect to its duties or any matter before it” (CPL 190.25 [6]). It is “sufficient if the District Attorney provides the Grand Jury with enough information to enable it intelligently to decide whether a crime has been committed and to determine whether there exists legally sufficient evidence to establish the material elements of the crime” *(People v Calbud, Inc.,*49 NY2d 389, 394-395 [1980]). The People have wide discretion in presenting evidence to establish their case and “do not have the obligation to present to the Grand Jury every piece of evidence which they possess against a suspect, nor must every matter which may have a tendency to reflect upon the credibility of a witness be revealed. The Grand Jury proceeding is not intended to be adversarial in nature or a minitrial of the individual suspected of committing a crime” *(People v Suarez,*122 AD2d 861, 862 [1986]). Here, the grand juror’s question sought to elicit information relating to the credibility of the young victim, a collateral issue “more appropriately reserved for presentation to the petit jury than to the Grand Jury” *(People v Ramjit,*203 AD2d 488, 490 [1994]; *see People v Suarez, supra*at 862). On this record, there is no basis upon which to conclude that the prosecutor’s response was improper or that it impaired the integrity of the grand jury proceeding *(see People v Van Dyke,*214 AD2d 468 [1995]; *see also People v West,*237 AD2d 315 [1997]). Schmidt, J.P., Spolzino, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.
### **CHAPTER 81—DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE**

Sec.
8101.
Definitions and construction.
8102.
Drug-free workplace requirements for Federal contractors.
8103.
Drug-free workplace requirements for Federal grant recipients.
8104.
Employee sanctions and remedies.
8105.
Waiver.
8106.
Regulations.
§ 839.1304 Is there anything else I can do if I am not satisfied with the way my error was corrected? ( a ) Except for claims under subpart L (see § 839.1303), and after exhausting your administrative remedies as set out in this subpart, you may bring a claim against the Government under section 1346(b) or chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code.
( b ) You may also bring a claim against the Government under any other provision of law if your claim is for amounts not otherwise provided for under these rules.
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 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Inland Western Retail Real Estate Trust, Inc. (the "Company") for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Steven P. Grimes as Chief Executive Officer, President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company and James W. Kleifges as Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge: (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 Company. /s/ Steven P. GrimesBy:Steven P. GrimesChief Executive Officer, President,
Chief Financial Officer and TreasurerDate:November 11, 2009/s/ James W. KleifgesBy:James W. KleifgesChief Accounting OfficerDate:November 11, 2009
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.15    
    


AMENDMENT NO. 5

TO

REINSURANCE AND POOLING AGREEMENT  


        WHEREAS, Zenith Insurance Company ("Zenith"),  ZNAT Insurance
Company ("ZNAT"), and Zenith Star Insurance
Company ("Zenith Star"), have previously entered into a Reinsurance and Pooling
Agreement effective October 1, 1993; as amended, and 


        WHEREAS,
Zenith Star Insurance Company is not licensed to transact business in the State of California (the domicile of  Zenith and ZNAT)
;


        NOW
THEREFORE IN CONSIDERATION of the premises, Zenith, ZNAT, and Zenith Star agree as
follows: 



	1.
	Article VIII is deleted and replaced by the following new provision: "VIII. Unauthorized Reinsurance. If
reinsurance provided under this Agreement is disallowed to any party for financial statement purposes by the insurance regulatory authority of any state, due to the laws or regulations of such state
relating to reinsurance effective with unauthorized companies, then the unauthorized company shall secure the reinsurance ceded to the extent it has been disallowed by one of the following methods:  





         (1)   By allowing the ceding insurer to withhold funds, under its exclusive control, in an amount equal to the liabilities carried by the ceding insurer;



         (2)   By placing the funds in trust under a trust agreement satisfactory to the respective regulatory authorities; or  



        (3)   By a clean, irrevocable, and unconditional letter of credit issued by a qualified United States financial institution and in the possession of the ceding
insurer.





        Any costs associated with the aforementioned provision of security shall be shared by the parties hereto according to their respective percentages, as shown in
Article V hereof."





 

        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned parties has caused this Amendment No. 5 to the Reinsurance and
Pooling Agreement to be executed on its behalf, on this 8th day of July, 2003. 



	 
	 	 
	 	 

	 	 	ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY
	

/s/  JOHN J. TICKNER      	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/  STANLEY R. ZAX      
	
 JOHN J. TICKNER

Secretary	 	 	 	
 STANLEY R. ZAX

President
	

 	
 	
ZNAT INSURANCE COMPANY
	

/s/  JOHN J. TICKNER      	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/  STANLEY R. ZAX      
	
 JOHN J. TICKNER

Secretary	 	 	 	
 STANLEY R. ZAX

President
	

 	
 	
ZENITH STAR INSURANCE COMPANY
	

/s/  JOHN J. TICKNER      	
 	

By:	
 	

/s/  STANLEY R. ZAX      
	
 JOHN J. TICKNER

Secretary	 	 	 	
 STANLEY R. ZAX

President




2









QuickLinks


Exhibit 10.15
Exhibit 32.0

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 Jefferson Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report), the undersigned hereby 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) | 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.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                  |  |                                                 
|----------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------
|February 14, 2011 |  | /s/ Anderson L. Smith                           
|                  |  | Anderson L. Smith                               
|                  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer           
|                  | 
|February 14, 2011 |  | /s/ Jane P. Hutton                              
|                  |  | Jane P. Hutton                                  
|                  |  | Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
EMPLOYER STATUS DETERMINATION

Rochelle Railroad Co.

This is the determination of the Railroad Retirement Board 

regarding the status of Rochelle Railroad Co. (RRCO) as an employer 

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

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

(RUIA). RRCO has not previously been determined to be an employer 

under the RRA and the RUIA.

Information about RRCO was furnished by Daniel A. LaKemper, General 

Counsel of RRCO. Although RRCO began as a non-carrier, upon its

lease and operation of 2.06 miles of rail line owned by the city of

Rochelle, Illinois, it became a class III carrier. See Surface 

Transportation Safety Board (SFB) Finance Docket No. 32889.

According to information provided by Mr. LaKemper, RRCO began 

operations on April 15, 1996, and has four employees who were

compensated from April 13, 1996 . Mr. LaKemper stated that the line

in question interchanges with Union Pacific Railroad and Burlington

Northern Railroad. RRCO provides common carrier freight service to

customers in the city of Rochelle Industrial Park. Mr. LaKemper 

estimates the annual volume of traffic to be approximately 6,000

carloads. RRCO is owned by Pioneer Railcorp., a noncarrier.

Section 1(a)(1) of the RRA defines the term "employer" to include:

Section 1(a) of the RUIA (45 U.S.C. § 351(a)) contains essentially

the same definition.

The evidence establishes that RRCO is a class III carrier.

Accordingly, it is determined that Rochelle Railroad Company became 

a rail carrier employer under the Railroad Retirement and Railroad

Unemployment Insurance Acts effective April 13, 1996, the date on

which it first compensated employi

(i) any carrier by railroad subject to the

jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation

Board under Part A of subtitle IV of title 49,

United Stated Code;

Glen L. Bower

Jerome ft F. Kever

BCD 1996-73

BA# 2778
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 223 (Friday, November 19, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 67759]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25800]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-04-031]


Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

AGENCY: United States International Trade Commission.

Time and Date: December 10, 2004 at 11 a.m.

Place: Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

Status: Open to the public.

Matters To Be Considered:
    1. Agenda for future meetings: none.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Inv. No. 731-TA-1058 (Final) (Wooden Bedroom Furniture from 
China)--briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to 
transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary 
of Commerce on or before December 22, 2004.)
    5. Inv. Nos. 701-TA-437 and 731-TA-1060 and 1061 (Final) (Carbazole 
Violet Pigment 23 from China and India)--briefing and vote. (The 
Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination to the 
Secretary of Commerce on or before December 22, 2004.)
    6. Outstanding action jackets: none.
    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, 
not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the 
agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: November 15, 2004.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 04-25800 Filed 11-17-04; 11:44 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
| **No. 1**    October 1998     Letter    from the DirectorWildfires    in MexicoModel    Forest Network Creates Partnership OpportunitiesForest    Level Test of Criteria and IndicatorsNews    Bits from Around the WorldNew    Journals, Books & Web SitesMeeting    Announcements |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Recent Newsletter                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |

Visitors since December 10, 1998
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 4, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00776

- CV

IN RE STATE OF TEXAS , ex. rel. Todd A. “ Tadeo ” Durden, County Attorney

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

On November 4, 2019, r elator filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the

trial court’s July 10, 2019 “Citation to Todd A. Durden to Appear and Show Authority, . . . and

for Consideration of Sanctions, . . . and Order of Protection.” Because w e conclude a subsequent

order issued by the trial court rendered the complaints raised in the petition moot, we dismiss

relator’s petition for writ of mandamus as moot.

It is so ORDERED on December 4, 2019

.

_____________________________ Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 4th day of December, 2019

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 4845, 4863, 4866, styled The State of Texas, ex. rel. Todd A. Durden, in His

Official Capacity as County Attorney v. James T. “ Tully ” Sh ahan, in His Official Capacity as County Judge; et al.

, pending in the 63rd Judicial District Court, Kinney County, Texas, the Honorable Sid L. Harle presiding.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-1648

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Lamont Elliott, also known as Lamont William Elliott

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

 ____________

 Submitted: September 7, 2023

Filed: September 19, 2023

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Lamont Elliott appeals after he pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine

pursuant to a plea agreement that includes an appeal waiver. His counsel has moved

to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
raising challenges to the voluntariness of Elliott’s plea and the sentence imposed by

the district court.1

Upon careful review, we conclude that Elliott is precluded from challenging

the voluntariness of his guilty plea in this appeal because he withdrew his pro se

motion to withdraw the plea in the district court. See United States v. Gamboa, 701

F.3d 265, 267-68 (8th Cir. 2012); United States v. Umanzor, 617 F.3d 1053, 1060

(8th Cir. 2010). We enforce the appeal waiver as to the remaining challenge to his

sentence. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010); United States

v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope

of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we

dismiss the appeal.

______________________________

1The Honorable Sarah E. Pitlyk, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

-2-
#### Dayton Hedges, Respondent, v. Pioneer Iron Works, Appellant.

Without determining whether the amended complaint is sufficient in law, we think that plaintiff should be permitted to serve the same. As terms of the amendment, defendant is entitled to receive its full taxable costs and disbursements of the action to date. Whether the sum allowed ($100) is equal to these or not, we are not in a position to determine. Defendant may, at its election, either receive, as terms of the amendment, such taxable costs and disbursements, but without any extra allowance, or the sum allowed by the learned justice at Special Term. The order as thus *932modified is affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Stapleton and Rich, JJ., concurred.
#### § 702.1 Introduction.

In accordance with 50 U.S.C. app. 2155, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) may obtain such information from, require such reports and the keeping of such records by, make an inspection of the books, records, and other writings, premises or property of, take the sworn testimony of and administer oaths and affirmations to, any person as may be necessary or appropriate, in its discretion, to the enforcement or the administration of its authorities and responsibilities under the Defense Production Act of 1950 as amended (DPA) and any regulations or orders issued thereunder. BIS's authorities under the DPA (50 U.S.C. app. 2061 *et seq.*) include authority to collect data via surveys to perform industry studies assessing the capabilities of the United States industrial base to support the national defense and develop policy recommendations to improve both the international competitiveness of specific domestic industries and their ability to meet national defense program needs.