alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 921.33 Boundary changes, amendments to the management plan, and addition of multiple-site components. ( a ) Changes in the boundary of a Reserve and major changes to the final management plan, including state laws or regulations promulgated specifically for the Reserve, may be made only after written approval by NOAA. NOAA may require public notice, including notice in the Federal Register and an opportunity for public comment before approving a boundary or management plan change. Changes in the boundary of a Reserve involving the acquisition of properties not listed in the management plan or final EIS require public notice and the opportunity for comment; in certain cases, a categorical exclusion, an environmental assessment and possibly an environmental impact statement may be required. NOAA will place a notice in the Federal Register of any proposed changes in Reserve boundaries or proposed major changes to the final management plan. The state shall be responsible for publishing an equivalent notice in the local media. See also requirements of §§ 921.4(b) and 921.13(a)(11).
( b ) As discussed in § 921.10(b), a state may choose to develop a multiple-site National Estuarine Research Reserve after the initial acquisition and development award for a single site has been made. NOAA will publish notice of the proposed new site including an invitation for comments from the public in the Federal Register. The state shall be responsible for publishing an equivalent notice in the local newspaper(s). An EIS, if required, shall be prepared in accordance with section § 921.13 and shall include an administrative framework for the multiple-site Reserve and a description of the complementary research and educational programs within the Reserve. If NOAA determines, based on the scope of the project and the issues associated with the additional site(s), that an environmental assessment is sufficient to establish a multiple-site Reserve, then the state shall develop a revised management plan which, concerning the additional component, incorporates each of the elements described in § 921.13(a). The revised management plan shall address goals and objectives for all components of the multi-site Reserve and the additional component's relationship to the original site(s).
( c ) The state shall revise the management plan for a Reserve at least every five years, or more often if necessary. Management plan revisions are subject to (a) above.
( d ) NOAA will approve boundary changes, amendments to management plans, or the addition of multiple-site components, by notice in the Federal Register. If necessary NOAA will revise the designation document (findings) for the site.
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 Annual Report of Tabatha III, Inc.,
the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ending June
30, 2003, (the "Report"), I, Robert L. Smith, President
and Director certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and
results of operations.



/s/ Robert L. Smith
-----------------------
Robert L. Smith
President and Director


Date: March 16, 2004
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

** **

I, Maurice R. Taylor, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewedthis quarterly report on 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 ofProUroCare Medical Inc.;

 

2.     Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3.     Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

 

4.     The registrant’sother certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b)             evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):

 

a)              allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)             anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

 
|                    | /s/    Maurice R. Taylor |
|-------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
| Date: May 10, 2006 | Name:  Maurice R. Taylor           |
|                    | Title:  Chief Executive Officer    |

 

----
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Morris John, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 72-278;

Second Division

August 6, 1974.

*354Ralph Ruebner and Richard J. Wilson, both of the State Appellate Defenders Office, of Elgin, for appellant.

Jack Hoogasian, State’s Attorney, of Waukegan (James W. Jerz and Edward Morris, both of Model District State’s Attorneys Office, of counsel), for the People.

Opinion by

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE T. MORAN.
### §6506. Administrative provisions

(a) In General.—The Secretary shall administer this chapter.

(b) Regulations.—The Secretary may make, amend, and rescind regulations as necessary to carry out this chapter.

(c) Use of Government Officers and Employees.—The Secretary shall use Federal officers and employees and, with a State's consent, State and local officers and employees as the Secretary finds necessary to assist in the administration of this chapter.

(d) Appointments.—The Secretary shall appoint an administrative officer and attorneys, experts, and other employees from time to time as the Secretary finds necessary for the administration of this chapter. The appointments are subject to chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5 and other law applicable to the employment and compensation of officers and employees of the Federal Government.

(e) Investigations.—The Secretary, or an authorized representative of the Secretary, may make investigations and findings as provided in this chapter and may, in any part of the United States, prosecute an inquiry necessary to carry out this chapter.

(Pub. L. 111–350, §3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3809.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 6506 | 41:38. | June 30, 1936, ch. 881, §4, 49 Stat. 2038. |

Section

In subsection (b), the word "rules" is omitted as included in "regulations".

In subsection (c), the words "and to prescribe rules and regulations with respect thereto" are omitted as unnecessary because of subsection (b).

In subsection (d), the words "without regard to the provisions of the civil-service laws", which appear in section 4 of the Walsh-Healey Act (June 30, 1936, ch. 881, 49 Stat. 2038), are omitted as obsolete because of Executive Order 8743, April 23, 1941 (5 U.S.C. 3301 note), issued by the President pursuant to the Act of November 26, 1940, ch. 919, title I, §1, 54 Stat. 1211. The words "the Classification Act of 1923", which appear in section 4 of the Walsh-Healey Act (June 30, 1936, ch. 881, 49 Stat. 2038), are considered to be a reference to the Classification Act of 1949 because of section 1106(a) of the Classification Act of 1949 (Oct. 28, 1949, ch. 782, 63 Stat. 972). The words "chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5" are substituted for the reference to the Classification Act of 1949 because of section 7(b) of Public Law 89–554 (5 U.S.C. note prec. 101).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 96-7465

NELSON HINES; SHAWN FENNER,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CR-93-205-JFM, CA-96-1565-JFM, CA-96-1666-JFM)

Submitted: March 27, 1997

Decided: April 8, 1997

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL,

Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Bonnie S. Greenberg,

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.

James K. Bredar, Federal Public Defender, Denise C. Barrett, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland; Barbara Gold,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

The United States appeals two orders of the district court denying

its requests to resentence Nelson Hines and Shawn Fenner on their

surviving drug convictions after their convictions under 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c) (1994) were vacated in light of Bailey v. United States, ___

U.S. ___, 64 U.S.L.W. 4039 (U.S. Dec. 6, 1995) (Nos.

94-7449/7492). The government conceded that the§ 924(c) convictions should be vacated but requested resentencing in each case so

that the district court might consider a two-level enhancement for possession of a weapon in connection with the drug offenses. See United

States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1 (Nov.

1995). The district court held that it lacked jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) to resentence Hines and Fenner.

We recently considered the issue raised here and held that the district court has jurisdiction to resolve any issue which was not litigated

and resolved at the original sentencing when the failure to litigate was

directly caused by the error which is the subject of the § 2255 petition. See United States v. Hillary, ___ F.3d ___, No. 96-7463, 1997

WL 61398 (4th Cir. Feb. 14, 1997).

The judgment of the district court is therefore vacated, and the case

is remanded with instructions to resentence Hines and Fenner. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

 2
### §13108. Savings provisions

(a) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to modify or interfere with the implementation of title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 [42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq.].

(b) Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed, interpreted or applied to supplant, displace, preempt or otherwise diminish the responsibilities and liabilities under other State or Federal law, whether statutory or common.

(Pub. L. 101–508, title VI, §6609, Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388–327.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, referred to in subsec. (a), is title III of Pub. L. 99–499, Oct. 17, 1986, 100 Stat. 1728, known as the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986, which is classified generally to chapter 116 (§11001 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of title III to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 11001 of this title and Tables.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6506

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MANNY LIZARDO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cr-00426-AJT-2)

Submitted: October 14, 2021 Decided: October 18, 2021

Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Manny Lizardo, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Manny Lizardo appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for 

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First Step 

Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194, 5239. Having reviewed the 

record and finding no reversible error, we affirm the decision of the district court. See

United States v. Lizardo, No. 1:18-cr-00426-AJT-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 22, 2021). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
No: 13-034 May 2, 2013

CONTACT: Maureen Conley, 301-415-8200

 

NRC Seeks Public Comment on Proposed Changes to

Petition-for-Rulemaking Process

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on a proposal to streamline 

and clarify its process for addressing petitions for rulemaking. Proposed changes to that process, to be 

published in the May 3 Federal Register, aim to improve transparency and make the process more 

efficient and effective.

The proposal marks the first comprehensive update to the NRC’s process for considering 

rulemaking petitions since that process was established in 1979. The process allows any member of the 

public to petition the Commission to issue a new regulation or to amend or rescind an existing one. The 

NRC is proposing revisions designed to reduce the time the agency needs to complete action on a 

petition and allow resources to be allocated more efficiently.

The proposed rule incorporates much of the NRC’s internal guidance to clarify the information 

that should be included in a petition. It also clarifies the process for resolving a rulemaking petition and 

for closing the petition docket, which would occur after the NRC denies a petition or initiates a 

rulemaking to address a petitioner’s concerns.

Other changes include allowing petitioners to consult directly with NRC staff both before and 

after filing a petition; clarifying and expanding the criteria for determining whether a petition is 

complete and sufficient for docketing; and providing explicit criteria the NRC would use in considering 

a petition.

The NRC will accept public comment on the proposed rule for 75 days. Comments can be faxed 

to 301-415-1101 or mailed to Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 

20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. Comments can also be submitted 

electronically by email to Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov or by going to the federal rulemaking 

website and searching for Docket ID NRC-2009-0044.
Exhibit 32.1

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

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of VSB Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Merton Corn, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 operations of the Company.


Date: May 10, 2005

                                            /s/ MERTON CORN
                                            ----------------------------------
                                            Merton Corn, President and CEO


A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

                                       25
### §12526. Consideration of applications

#### (a) Criteria for local applications

In providing assistance under this part, a State educational agency, territory, or Indian tribe (or the Corporation if section 12524(c) of this title applies) shall consider criteria with respect to sustainability, replicability, innovation, and quality of programs.

#### (b) Priority for local applications

In providing assistance under this part, a State educational agency, territory, or Indian tribe (or the Corporation if section 12524(c) of this title applies) shall give priority to entities that submit applications under section 12525 of this title with respect to service-learning programs described in section 12521 of this title that are in the greatest need of assistance, such as programs targeting low-income areas or serving economically disadvantaged youth.

#### (c) Rejection of applications to Corporation

If the Corporation rejects an application submitted by a State, territory, or Indian tribe under section 12525 of this title for an allotment, the Corporation shall promptly notify the State, territory, or Indian tribe of the reasons for the rejection of the application. The Corporation shall provide the State, territory, or Indian tribe with a reasonable opportunity to revise and resubmit the application and shall provide technical assistance, if needed, to the State, territory, or Indian tribe as part of the resubmission process. The Corporation shall promptly reconsider such resubmitted application.

(Pub. L. 101–610, title I, §114, as added Pub. L. 111–13, title I, §1201, Apr. 21, 2009, 123 Stat. 1472.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 12526, Pub. L. 101–610, title I, §114, as added Pub. L. 103–82, title I, §103(a)(2), Sept. 21, 1993, 107 Stat. 829, related to preparation, submission, and approval of local applications, prior to the general amendment of this part by Pub. L. 111–13.

Another prior section 12526, Pub. L. 101–610, title I, §116, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 3138; Pub. L. 102–384, §4, Oct. 5, 1992, 106 Stat. 1455, prescribed Federal and local project contributions, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 103–82, §103(a)(2).

A prior section 114 of Pub. L. 101–610 was classified to section 12524 of this title prior to repeal by Pub. L. 103–82.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 2009, see section 6101(a) of Pub. L. 111–13, set out as an Effective Date of 2009 Amendment note under section 4950 of this title.
#### Metropolitan Life Insurance Company of New York, Respondent, v. Fifty-ninth Street Real Estate Company, Appellant, Impleaded with Others.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Ho opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
409 P.2d 134

#### MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, formerly known as Mutual Benefit Health *&*Accident Association, and H. C. Moore, Petitioners, v. Honorable James M. SCARBOROUGH, District Judge, designated to act in the Second Judicial District composed of Bernalillo, Sandoval and Valencia Counties, Respondent.

No. 8057.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Jan. 5, 1966.

Ordered that the petition for alternative writ of mandamus be and the same is hereby denied.
#### The People of the State of New York et al., Respondents, v. Antonio Falcone et al., Appellants.

Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Love, Vaughan and Kimball, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 745.]
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67946-67947]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25862]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Material Handling Industry

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 21, 2004, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Material Handling Industry 
(``MHI'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the 
name and principal place of business of the standards development 
organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development 
activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking 
the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: Material 
Handling Industry, Charlotte, NC. The nature and scope of MHI's 
standards development activities are: ANSI accredited standards

[[Page 67947]]

developer for various types of material handling equipment.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-25862 Filed 11-19-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
Director Compensation



 Exhibit 10.1 
 Director Compensation 
 (Effective July 1, 2007) 
 Director compensation is reviewed by the Compensation, Nominating and Governance Committee (“CNG Committee”) of the Board of Directors, which
recommends director compensation to the Board for approval. In July 2007, after a competitive review of director compensation, the Board approved the following director compensation, effective July 1, 2007: 
  

	 	•	 	 Each non-management director is paid an annual cash retainer of $50,000, except that the Chairman of the Board is paid $70,000. 


  

	 	•	 	 Committee chairs receive an additional annual cash retainer, $10,000 in the case of the Audit Committee, $5,000 in the case of the CNG Committee and $5,000 in the
case of the Corporate Risk Committee, to the extent such chair is a non-management director. 


  

	 	•	 	 Directors are reimbursed for their reasonable travel, lodging, food and other expenses incurred in connection with their service on the Board and its committees.



  

	 	•	 	 Directors have the option of participating in the Company’s Deferred Compensation Plan.
### SUBCHAPTER XVI—SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR AGED, BLIND, AND DISABLED