alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §12141. Definitions

As used in this subpart:

#### (1) Demand responsive system

The term "demand responsive system" means any system of providing designated public transportation which is not a fixed route system.

#### (2) Designated public transportation

The term "designated public transportation" means transportation (other than public school transportation) by bus, rail, or any other conveyance (other than transportation by aircraft or intercity or commuter rail transportation (as defined in section 12161 of this title)) that provides the general public with general or special service (including charter service) on a regular and continuing basis.

#### (3) Fixed route system

The term "fixed route system" means a system of providing designated public transportation on which a vehicle is operated along a prescribed route according to a fixed schedule.

#### (4) Operates

The term "operates", as used with respect to a fixed route system or demand responsive system, includes operation of such system by a person under a contractual or other arrangement or relationship with a public entity.

#### (5) Public school transportation

The term "public school transportation" means transportation by schoolbus vehicles of schoolchildren, personnel, and equipment to and from a public elementary or secondary school and school-related activities.

#### (6) Secretary

The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of Transportation.

(Pub. L. 101–336, title II, §221, July 26, 1990, 104 Stat. 338.)

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

#### Effective Date

Pub. L. 101–336, title II, §231, July 26, 1990, 104 Stat. 346, provided that:

"(a) General Rule.—Except as provided in subsection (b), this part [part I (§§221–231) of subtitle B of title II of Pub. L. 101–336, enacting this subpart] shall become effective 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act [July 26, 1990].

"(b) Exception.—Sections 222, 223 (other than subsection (a)), 224, 225, 227(b), 228(b), and 229 [sections 12142, 12143(b) to (f), 12144, 12145, 12147(b), 12148(b), and 12149 of this title] shall become effective on the date of enactment of this Act."
§ 1019.1 Purpose, applicability, and exemptions. ( a ) *Purpose.* The regulations in this subpart A of this part 1019 establish the procedures exporters must use to notify the Consumer Product Safety Commission of their intent to export from the United States products which are banned or fail to comply with an applicable safety standard, regulation, or statute. These regulations also set forth the procedures the Commission uses in transmitting the notification of export of noncomplying products to the country to which those products will be sent. The Consumer Product Safety Act Authorization Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-631), which became effective November 10, 1978, established these notification requirements and authorizes the Commission to issue regulations to implement them.
( b ) *Applicability.* These regulations apply to any person or firm which exports from the United States and item which is: ( 1 ) A consumer product that does not conform to an applicable consumer product safety rule issued under sections 7 and 9 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056, 2058), or which has been declared to be a banned hazardous product under provisions of sections 8 and 9 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 2057, 2058); or
( 2 ) A misbranded hazardous substance or a banned hazardous substance within the meaning of sections 2(p) and 2(q) of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (15 U.S.C. 1261); or
( 3 ) A fabric or related material or an item of wearing apparel or interior furnishing made of fabric or related material which fails to conform with an applicable flammability standard or regulations issued under section 4 of the Flammable Fabrics Act (15 U.S.C. 1191, 1193).
( c ) *Exemption for certain items with noncomplying labeling.* The exporter of an item that fails to comply with a standard or regulation only because it is labeled in a language other than English need not notify the Commission prior to export if the product is labeled with the required information in the language of the country to which the product will be sent.
( d ) *Exemption for samples.* The exporter of an item that fails to comply with a standard or regulation, but which is intended for use only as a sample and not for resale, need not notify the Commission prior to export, if the item is conspicuously and labeled in English with the statement: “Sample only. Not for resale.” (The Commission encourages exporters to provide this label, in addition, in the language of the importing country, but does not require the foreign language labeling.) To qualify as a sample shipment under this exemption, the quantity of goods involved must be consistent with prevalent trade practices with respect to the specific product.
( e ) *Exemption for items not in child-resistant packaging.* The exporter of an item which is a “misbranded hazardous substance” within the meaning of section 2(p) of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (15 U.S.C. 1261(p)) only because it fails to comply with an applicable requirement for child-resistant packaging under the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970 (15 U.S.C. 1471 *et seq.*) need not notify the Commission prior to export.
EXHIBIT 32.1


Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer


of CNA Financial Corporation


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350


(As adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of CNA Financial Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:


• the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 the Company.


Dated:February 8, 2022By/s/ Dino E. RobustoDino E. RobustoChief Executive Officer


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.
No: 13-074 September 6, 2013

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200 

NRC Issues Final Safety Evaluation Report for 

Davis-Besse License Renewal Application

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has issued its final safety evaluation report (SER) for 

the proposed renewal of the operating license for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station in Oak 

Harbor, Ohio. The report concluded that there are no issues that would preclude license renewal for an 

additional 20 years of operation.

Davis-Besse is a pressurized-water reactor located approximately 20 miles east of Toledo. The 

current operating license expires April 22, 2017. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) 

submitted its license renewal application to the NRC on Aug. 27, 2010.

The SER documents the results of the NRC staff’s review of the license renewal application and 

site audit of Davis-Besse’s aging-management programs to address the safety of plant operations during 

the period of extended operation. Overall, the results show that FENOC has identified actions to 

manage the effects of aging in the appropriate systems, structures and components of the plant, and that 

their functions will be maintained during the period of extended operation. 

Issuing the final SER is a significant milestone in the license renewal review process. This 

process proceeds along two tracks – one for review of safety issues and another for environmental 

issues. The staff is still reviewing the environmental part of the Davis-Besse application. A final 

licensing decision will not be made until the NRC completes its waste confidence rulemaking, currently 

scheduled for September 2014.

The SER and the license renewal application have been provided to the Advisory Committee on 

Reactor Safeguards, an independent body of experts that advises the commission on reactor safety 

matters. The committee will discuss the SER during an upcoming meeting and then submit its 

recommendation on license renewal to the Commission.

Documents related to Davis-Besse’s license renewal application, including the SER, as well as 

information about the license renewal process, are located on the NRC’s website. 

Documents related to Davis-Besse are also located at the Ida Rupp Library, 310 Madison Street, 

Port Clinton, OH, 43452, and at the Toledo-Lucas County Public Library, 352 North Michigan Street, 

Toledo, OH, 43604.
### §603. Process for establishing motor vehicle pools and transportation systems

(a) Determination Requirement.—

(1) In general.—The Administrator of General Services may carry out section 602 only if the Administrator determines, after consultation with the agencies concerned and with due regard to their program activities, that doing so is advantageous to the Federal Government in terms of economy, efficiency, or service.

(2) Elements of the determination.—A determination under this section must be in writing. For each motor vehicle pool or system, the determination must set forth an analytical justification that includes—

(A) a detailed comparison of estimated costs for present and proposed modes of operation; and

(B) a showing that savings can be realized by the establishment, maintenance, and operation of a motor vehicle pool or system.

(b) Regulations Related to Establishment.—

(1) In general.—The President shall prescribe regulations establishing procedures to carry out section 602 of this title.

(2) Elements of the regulations.—The regulations shall provide for—

(A) adequate notice to an executive agency of any determination that affects the agency or its functions;

(B) independent review and decision as directed by the President of any determination disputed by an agency, with the possibility that the decision may include a partial or complete exemption of the agency from the determination; and

(C) enforcement of determinations that become effective under the regulations.

(3) Effect of the regulations.—A determination under subsection (a) is binding on an agency only as provided in regulations issued under this subsection.

(Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1122.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 603(a)(1) | 40:491(b) (related to determination). | June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title II, §211(b) (related to determination), (c), (e), as added Sept. 5, 1950, ch. 849, §5(c), 64 Stat. 583; Sept. 1, 1954, ch. 1211, §2, 68 Stat. 1126. |
| 603(a)(2) | 40:491(e). | |
| 603(b) | 40:491(c). | |

Section

In subsection (b)(1), the words "within ninety days after the effective date of this section" are omitted as obsolete.
**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 Victoria Industries, Inc. a Nevada
      corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31,
      2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the “Report”), Albert Abdoulline, Principal Executive 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 20, 2008By:
            /s/
                Albert AbdoullineAlbert
                AbdoullineChief
                Executive Officer
### Part D—Energy Storage for Transportation and Electric Power
No: 14-031 Date: May 07, 2014

CONTACT: David McIntyre, 301-415-8200

NRC Announces Public Availability of Fermi 2 Nuclear Plant 

License Renewal Application

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received an application from DTE Electric Co. to 

renew the operating license for the Fermi 2 nuclear power plant in Michigan. The application is now 

available for public inspection on the NRC website.

DTE filed the application April 30, seeking to renew the license for an additional 20 years of 

operation. Fermi 2, a boiling water reactor located in Monroe County, Michigan, is currently licensed to 

operate through March 20, 2025.

The NRC staff is currently reviewing the application to determine if it is sufficiently 

complete to begin the agency’s extensive safety and environmental reviews. If the application is 

determined to be complete, the staff will docket it and publish a notice of opportunity to request an 

adjudicatory hearing before the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.

The application and information about the license renewal process are available on the NRC 

website. A copy of the license renewal application will be available at the Ellis Library and Reference 

Center, 3700 South Custer Road, Monroe, Mich.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL LEE MELLINGER,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v. UNKNOWN GRABER, Warden,

Respondent

- Appellee. No. 15

- 17222

D.C. No. 2:15

- cv
- 00129

- DGC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 18, 2017 **

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Daniel Lee Mellinger appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the denial of a section
2241 petition, see Tablada v. Thomas , 533 F.3d 800, 80 5 (9th Cir. 2008), and we

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JAN 23 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 17222

affirm

. Mellinger contends that the decision of the United States Parole Commission
(“Commission”) revoking his parole unlawfully extended his original sentence.
Judicial review of the Commission’s discretionary decisions is limi ted to
determining whether the Commission’s action lacked good cause or was so
arbitrary as to violate due process. See Walker v. United States , 816 F.2d 1313,
1316 (9 th Cir. 1987). Thompson v. Crabtree , 82 F.3d 312 (9 th Cir. 1996), upon
which Mellinger relies, is factually distinguishable and does not support
Mellinger’s argument that he is entitled to credit for time served on his 2000

conviction

. T he Commission retains the discretion t o determine whether to grant

paro le release and whether to grant credit towards a parolee’s unexpired sentence
for terms of imprisonment imposed for offenses committed subsequent to parole

release. See 18 U.S.C. § § 4206(c), 4210(b)(2). In light of Mellinger’s lengthy and

violent crimina l history and unacceptable risk to public safety , the Commission’s
determination that good cause existed to deny reparole and deny Mellinger credit
for time served on an unrelated sentence was not arbitrary, irrationa l, unreasonable,
irrelevant, capricious , or unconstitutional

. See Walker , 816 F.2d at 1316

. Mellinger’s motion to consolidate this appe al with Appeal Number 15

-3 15

- 17222

16984 is denied because that appeal has been dismissed

. Mellinger’s motion for expedited resolution is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED

.
Exhibit 35.2




SERVICER COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE




PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB UNDER THE




SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934




Re:
HSBC Credit Card Master Note Trust (USA) I


Series 2007-1, Class A Notes and Series 2007-2, Class A Notes







I, Sharon L. Fugitt, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of HSBC Card Services Inc. (the “Company”), pursuant to Item 1123 of Regulation AB of the Securities and Exchange Commission and Section 3.05 of the Second Amended and Restated Transfer and Servicing Agreement, dated as of June 30, 2006 (the “Agreement”), among HSBC Receivables Funding Inc. I, as Transferor, HSBC Finance Corporation, as Servicer, and Wilmington Trust Company, as Owner Trustee of the HSBC Credit Card Master Note Trust (USA) I, hereby certify that:




1.
A review of the activities of the Company from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010 and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and





2.
To the best of my knowledge, based on my review, the Company has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period referred to above except as set forth below:





NONE





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this certificate on behalf of the Company this 28th day of March 2011.








HSBC Card Services Inc.











By: /s/ Sharon L. Fugitt


Name:  Sharon L. Fugitt
### §10268. Report

The Board shall report not less than 2 times per year to Congress and the Secretary its findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The first such report shall be submitted not later than 12 months after December 22, 1987.

(Pub. L. 97–425, title V, §508, as added Pub. L. 100–202, §101(d) [title III], Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1329–104, 1329–121; Pub. L. 100–203, title V, §5051, Dec. 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 1330–250.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 100–202 and Pub. L. 100–203 added identical sections.

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

#### Termination of Reporting Requirements

For termination, effective May 15, 2000, of provisions of this section relating to reporting to Congress 2 times per year, see section 3003 of Pub. L. 104–66, as amended, set out as a note under section 1113 of Title 31, Money and Finance, and the last item on page 186 of House Document No. 103–7.
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Siliconware Precision Industries Co., Ltd. on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009
as filed with the SEC on the date hereof, I, Chi-Wen Tsai, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge, 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: April 29, 2010



By:

/s/ Chi-Wen TsaiName:

Chi-Wen TsaiTitle:

Chief Executive Officer




|* | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the company and will be retained by the
company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.
|- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### § 270.324 Negotiations.

The Lead Investigator may enter into discussions with appropriate parties to address problems identified with the goal of obtaining the permission requested pursuant to § 270.323 of this subpart.
#### Smith Holdings, LLC, Respondent, v Eugene L. Irace et al., Appellants.

[819 NYS2d 562]

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract *429for the sale of real property, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Henry, J.), dated March 15, 2005, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment compelling specific performance of the contract of sale and denied their cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

Under the terms of the parties’ contract of sale the risk of loss in the event of a fire was governed by General Obligations Law § 5-1311. Pursuant to this provision, “when legal title or possession has been transferred to the purchaser he is not relieved by destruction of all or any part of the property from his obligation to pay the price” *(Lucenti v Cayuga Apts.,*48 NY2d 530, 536 [1979]). In the instant case, the parties’ contract provided that “Purchaser’s possession hereunder shall begin immediately after tenant vacates and premises are broom cleaned.”

The tenant vacated the premises and the plaintiff received a key to the premises in June 2003. In July 2003 the plaintiff opened an electrical utilities account in the name of a professional corporation owned by the plaintiffs principal and started paying for utilities for the premises.

In March 2004 the building on the property was destroyed by fire. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced the instant action, seeking specific performance of the contract with an abatement of the purchase price. After issue was joined, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment compelling specific performance of the contract of sale. The defendant cross-moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the motion and denied the cross motion. We reverse.

Since possession and the right to possession passed to the plaintiff before the fire, the plaintiff bore the risk of loss *(see Lucenti v Cayuga Apts., supra).*There was no evidence that the plaintiff was not able to exclude the public at large from the premises *(see Kings Ridge Elec. Corp. v La Bella,*31 AD2d 821 [1969]). Therefore, the plaintiff must either cancel the contract or proceed with the contract without an abatement. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.