alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §14704. Termination

This subtitle, except sections 14102(a)(1) and (b) and 14501, ceases to be in effect on October 1, 2026.

(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1278; Pub. L. 109–289, div. B, title II, §20326, as added Pub. L. 110–5, §2, Feb. 15, 2007, 121 Stat. 22; Pub. L. 110–371, §6, Oct. 8, 2008, 122 Stat. 4042; Pub. L. 114–94, div. A, title I, §1436(c), Dec. 4, 2015, 129 Stat. 1431; Pub. L. 116–159, div. B, title I, §1107(b), Oct. 1, 2020, 134 Stat. 727; Pub. L. 117–58, div. A, title I, §11506(g), Nov. 15, 2021, 135 Stat. 586.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 14704 | 40 App.:405. | Pub. L. 89–4, title IV, §405, Mar. 9, 1965, 79 Stat. 23; Pub. L. 91–123, title I, §111, Nov. 25, 1969, 83 Stat. 216; Pub. L. 92–65, title II, §213, Aug. 5, 1971, 85 Stat. 173; Pub. L. 94–188, title I, §122(a), Dec. 31, 1975, 89 Stat. 1086; Pub. L. 96–506, §3(6), Dec. 8, 1980, 94 Stat. 2746; Pub. L. 105–178, title I, §1222(b) (1st sentence), June 9, 1998, 112 Stat. 224; Pub. L. 105–393, title II, §222, Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3625; Pub. L. 107–149, §12, Mar. 12, 2002, 116 Stat. 71. |

Section

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2021—Pub. L. 117–58 substituted "2026" for "2021".

2020—Pub. L. 116–159 substituted "2021" for "2020".

2015—Pub. L. 114–94 substituted "2020" for "2012".

2008—Pub. L. 110–371 substituted "2012" for "2007".

2007—Pub. L. 109–289, §20326, as added by Pub. L. 110–5, substituted "October 1, 2007" for "October 1, 2006".

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

#### Effective Date of 2021 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 117–58 effective Oct. 1, 2021, see section 10003 of Pub. L. 117–58, set out as a note under section 101 of Title 23, Highways.

#### Effective Date of 2015 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 114–94 effective Oct. 1, 2015, see section 1436(d) of Pub. L. 114–94, set out as an Effective Date note under section 14509 of this title.
#### Fred Arnold, Appellant, v. Thomas A. Twomey et al., Respondents.

Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ. [See *post,*p. 655.]
### SUBCHAPTER I–E—VOTING RIGHTS OF OVERSEAS CITIZENS
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2019097EN.01001101.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 8.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 97/11 |

---

DECISION No 64/2018 OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED UNDER THE AGREEMENT ON MUTUAL RECOGNITION BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

of 20 March 2019

related to the listing of Conformity Assessment Bodies under the Sectoral Annex for Electromagnetic Compatibility [2019/557]

THE JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on Mutual Recognition between the European Community and the United States of America and in particular Articles 7 and 14,

Whereas the Joint Committee is to take a decision to list a Conformity Assessment Body or Bodies under a Sectoral Annex,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | The Conformity Assessment Body in Attachment A is added to the list of Conformity Assessment Bodies under column ‘EC access to the US market’ in Section V of the Sectoral Annex for Electromagnetic Compatibility. |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | The specific scope of listing, in terms of products and conformity assessment procedures, of the Conformity Assessment Body indicated in Attachment A has been agreed by the Parties and will be maintained by them. |

This Decision, done in duplicate, shall be signed by representatives of the Joint Committee who are authorised to act on behalf of the Parties for purposes of amending the Agreement. This Decision shall be effective from the date of the later of these signatures.

On behalf of the United States of America

James C. SANFORD

Signed in Washington, on 21 February 2019

On behalf of the European Union

Ignacio IRUARRIZAGA

Signed in Brussels, on 20 March 2019

---

ATTACHMENT A

EC Conformity Assessment Body added to the list of Conformity Assessment Bodies under column ‘EC access to the US market’ in Section V of the Sectoral Annex for Electromagnetic Compatibility

| | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | --- | | PKM electronic GmbH | | Ohmstraße 1 | | 84160 Frontenhausen | | GERMANY | |

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. §1350

I, Salomon Sredni, Chief
Executive Officer of TradeStation Group, Inc., hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K of TradeStation Group,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of TradeStation Group, Inc.

The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



|               |  |  |  |                        
|-------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|March 12, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Salomon Sredni     
|Date           |  |  |  | Salomon Sredni         
|               |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 14, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00194

- CV

DTND SIERRA INVESTMENTS, LLC

,

Appellant

v.

COMPASS BANK

, Appellee

From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 18326

Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Appellant's request for oral argument is hereby DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on November 14, 2014.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
No: II-13-051 August 21, 2013

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417

Joey Ledford 404-997-4416

NRC Assigns New Resident Inspector to Oconee Nuclear Power Plant 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials have selected Natasha Childs

as a resident inspector for Duke Energy’s Oconee nuclear power plant, located 

near Seneca, S.C., about 30 miles west of Greenville.

Childs joined the NRC in October 2008 as a project engineer in the 

Resident Inspector Development Program in the NRC’s Region II office in 

Atlanta. She successfully completed the Resident Inspector Qualification 

Program and was the resident inspector at the Crystal River nuclear plant in 

Florida until she moved to the Oconee plant.

Prior to joining the NRC, Childs spent eight years working as a design engineer and system 

engineer at the Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan and the Watts Bar nuclear plant in Tennessee.

Childs attended the University of Illinois in Champaign, where she received a Bachelor of 

Science degree in Mechanical Engineering.

“Natasha Childs has the dedication and experience to carry out the NRC mission of protecting 

people and the environment, and to help ensure the safe operation of the Oconee plant,” said NRC 

Region II Administrator Victor McCree.

At least two NRC resident inspectors are assigned to each U.S. commercial nuclear plant. They 

serve as the agency’s eyes and ears at the facility, conducting inspections, monitoring major work 

projects and interacting with plant workers and the public. Resident inspectors can serve at one site for 

up to seven years. 

Childs joins NRC Senior Resident Inspector Eddy Crowe and Resident Inspector Greg Croon at 

the Oconee site. The Oconee resident inspectors can be reached at 864-882-6927.
### Part B—National Information Programs
### Part E—Market Transparency, Enforcement, and Consumer Protection
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 March 31, 2009 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.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|             |  |  |  |  |  |                                                 
|------------ |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------
|May 11, 2009 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Anderson L. Smith                           
|             |  |  |  |  |  | Anderson L. Smith                               
|             |  |  |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer           
|             |  |  | 
|May 11, 2009 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Jane P. Hutton                              
|             |  |  |  |  |  | Jane P. Hutton                                  
|             |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Secretary
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**WOIZE
      INTERNATIONAL LTD.**


**FORM
      10-QSB FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2006**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**


**PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




I
      am the
      Chief Executive Officer of Woize International Ltd., a Nevada corporation (the
      "Company"). I am delivering this certificate in connection with the Form 10-QSB
      of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 and filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission ("Form 10-QSB").




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
      the Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
      contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






Date:
                  August 20,
                  2007
              By:
              /s/ Daniel
                SavinoDaniel
                  Savino
                Chief
                  Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-50764

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARTHUR FORMANN,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. MO-96-CA-51

- - - - - - - - - -

November 4, 1998

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Federal prisoner (#17501-077) Arthur Formann has appealed

the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his motion to

vacate, 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We AFFIRM.

Formann is not entitled to relief on his claim that the

presentence report was disclosed to him less than 10 days prior

to sentencing, and that his counsel was ineffective for failing

to object to this and to correct alleged inaccuracies in the

presentence report. See United States v. Cervantes, 132 F.3d 
No. 97-50764

-2-

1106, 1109 (5th Cir. 1998); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.

668, 687, 690 (1984).

Formann contends that he is entitled to relief on grounds

that his court-appointed counsel was ineffective in numerous

other respects. We have determined that the district court did

not err in denying relief relative to these claims. 

Formann contends that the evidence was insufficient to

support his convictions. The court will not consider this claim

because the evidence was held to be sufficient upon his direct

appeal, United States v. Faulkner, 17 F.3d 751, 768-71 (5th Cir.

1994). See United States v. Kalish, 780 F.2d 506, 508 (5th Cir.

1986). Furthermore, Formann's claim that a government witness's

testimony lacked credibility is not a valid basis for relief from

a conviction. See United States v. Robles-Pantoja, 887 F.2d

1250, 1254-55 (5th Cir. 1989).

Formann contends that he is entitled to relief on grounds

that the trial court did not instruct the jury that materiality

of a false statement is an element of willfully overvaluing land

or property in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014. He relies on

United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482, 117 S.Ct. 921 (1997). The

Wells Court held, however, that "materiality of falsehood is

[not] an element of the crime of knowingly making a false

statement to a federally insured bank, 18 U.S.C. § 1014." 117 S.

Ct. at 924.

Formann contends that he should be resentenced to home

confinement, on authority of U.S.S.G. §§ 5H1.1 (age) and 5H1.4
No. 97-50764

-3-

(poor physical condition). This claim is not cognizable in a 

§ 2255 proceeding. See Cervantes, 132 F.3d at 1109.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# February 2013, Report on the Status of Public Petitions Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206.

Accession Number: ML13059A336

Date Released: Monday, March 25, 2013

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML13059A347 - February 2013, Report on the Status of Public Petitions Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206. (2 page(s), 3/21/2013)
    - ML13059A353 - Enclosure:  February 2013, Report on the Status of Public Petitions Under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 2.206. (26 page(s), 3/21/2013)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
Exhibit 32


                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                           AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
               SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


<PAGE>

Exhibit 32


                          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 of Xpention  Genetics,  Inc.  (formerly
Bayview Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended February
28, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  the  undersigned,  in the capacities and on the dates indicated
below, 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 his 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.


Date:  April 18, 2007


/s/ David Kittrell
---------------------------------------
David Kittrell, CEO and CFO
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Michael D. Durham, as President and Chief Executive Officer of ADA-ES, Inc.
(the Company), certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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/ Michael D. Durham
|Name:                 |  | Michael D. Durham                    
|Title:                |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|Date:                 |  | November 13, 2009
### Part C—Biofuels Infrastructure
#### § 766.2 Definitions.

As used in this part, the following definitions apply:

*Administrative law judge.* The person authorized to conduct hearings in administrative enforcement proceedings brought under the EAA or to hear appeals from the imposition of temporary denial orders. The term “judge” may be used for brevity when it is clear that the reference is to the administrative law judge.

*Assistant Secretary.* The Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement, Bureau of Industry and Security.

*Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS).* Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce (formerly the Bureau of Export Administration) and all of its component units, including, in particular for purposes of this part, the Office of Antiboycott Compliance, the Office of Export Enforcement, and the Office of Exporter Services.

*Final decision.* A decision or order assessing a civil penalty, denial of export privileges or other sanction, or otherwise disposing of or dismissing a case, which is not subject to further review under this part, but which is subject to collection proceedings or judicial review in an appropriate Federal district court as authorized by law.

*Initial decision.* A decision of the administrative law judge in proceedings involving violations relating to part 760 of the EAR, which is subject to appellate review by the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security, but which becomes the final decision in the absence of such an appeal.

*Party.* BIS and any person named as a respondent under this part.

*Recommended decision.* A decision of the administrative law judge in proceedings involving violations other than those relating to part 760 of the EAR, which is subject to review by the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security, who issues a written order affirming, modifying or vacating the recommended decision.

*Respondent.* Any person named as the subject of a charging letter, proposed charging letter, temporary denial order, or other order proposed or issued under this part.

*Under Secretary.* The Under Secretary for Industry and Security, United States Department of Commerce.

[61 FR 12907, Mar. 25, 1996, as amended at 67 FR 20631, Apr. 26, 2002; 70 FR 8250, Feb. 18, 2005]
NRC SCHEDULES PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS MOX FACILITY 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has scheduled a public meeting for Tuesday, 

July 24, to discuss the status of the Mixed Oxide or MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility construction 

project focusing on NRC inspection and oversight. 

The meeting is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. at the Hydrogen Research Center on the 

Savannah River Research Campus, 301 Gateway Dr., New Ellenton, S.C. People attending the 

meeting will not be required to go through Savannah River site security. The NRC staff will 

available to answer any questions after the formal portion of the meeting.

The MOX facility, being constructed by Shaw Areva MOX Services, is located at the 

U.S. Department of Energy’s Savannah River site near Aiken, S.C. The facility will be owned by 

the DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration and will convert supplies of surplus 

weapons-grade plutonium into more proliferation-resistant forms by blending it with uranium. 

Converting the plutonium into MOX fuel will enable it to be used in commercial reactors to 

generate electricity. The NRC issued a construction authorization for the facility in March 2005. 

###

NOTE: Anyone wishing to take photos or use a camera to record any portion of a NRC meeting should 

contact the Office of Public Affairs beforehand.

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, 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-12-048

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 997-4417

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416

 

 

July 16, 2012 

E-mail: OPA2.Resource@nrc.gov
### **CHAPTER 30—MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAM**
NRC SCHEDULES PUBLIC MEETING TO DISCUSS

APPROVAL OF NFS LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled an information meeting for 

Thursday, Aug. 30, to discuss how the agency arrived at its decision to approve a 25-year 

extension of the operating license for the Nuclear Fuel Services facility in Erwin, Tenn.

The meeting is scheduled to run from 6 to 8:30 p.m. EDT in the Unicoi County 

Courthouse, 100 N. Main Street in Erwin. The meeting will be open to the public and those 

attending are invited to ask the NRC staff questions and discuss the renewal of the license. 

NFS submitted its renewal application in June 2009 and the NRC staff performed a 

detailed technical review. The NRC staff recently renewed the license, determining that the NFS 

application demonstrated the company is qualified by training and experience to use the licensed 

material according to NRC regulations. The NRC staff also found that the company’s 

equipment, facilities and procedures are adequate to protect the public. 

Before approving the application, the staff found that renewing the license would not 

have a significant impact on the environment. The staff published a final environmental 

assessment and finding of no significant impact in October 2011. The assessment includes 

responses to approximately 375 public comments received on a draft environmental assessment 

published in October 2010. 

The NRC staff held several previous public meetings in Erwin and at NRC Headquarters 

to explain the license renewal review process, the environmental assessment and the resolution 

of certain items identified during the technical safety review.

###

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, 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-12-054

CONTACT: Roger Hannah (404) 997-4417

 Joey Ledford (404) 997-4416

 

August 21, 2012

E-mail: OPA2.Resource@nrc.gov