alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §11386d. Matching funding

#### (a) In general

A collaborative applicant in a geographic area in which funds are awarded under this part shall specify contributions from any source other than a grant awarded under this part, including renewal funding of projects assisted under parts C, D, and F of this subchapter as in effect before the effective date under section 1503 of the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009, that shall be made available in the geographic area in an amount equal to not less than 25 percent of the funds provided to recipients in the geographic area, except that grants for leasing shall not be subject to any match requirement.

#### (b) Limitations on in-kind match

The cash value of services provided to the residents or clients of a project sponsor by an entity other than the project sponsor may count toward the contributions in subsection (a) only when documented by a memorandum of understanding between the project sponsor and the other entity that such services will be provided.

#### (c) Countable activities

The contributions required under subsection (a) may consist of—

(1) funding for any eligible activity described under section 11383 of this title; and

(2) subject to subsection (b), in-kind provision of services of any eligible activity described under section 11383 of this title.

(Pub. L. 100–77, title IV, §430, as added Pub. L. 111–22, div. B, title III, §1305(3), May 20, 2009, 123 Stat. 1695.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 1503 of the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009, referred to in subsec. (a), is section 1503 of Pub. L. 111–22, which is set out as an Effective Date of 2009 Amendment note under section 11302 of this title.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective on the earlier of 18 months after May 20, 2009, or 3 months after publication of certain final regulations by Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, see section 1503 of Pub. L. 111–22, set out as an Effective Date of 2009 Amendment note under section 11302 of this title.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7839

JAMES M. CONNELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM DAVIS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. William B. Traxler, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-94-3326-0-21BD)

Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: September 30, 1996

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James M. Connell, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the grant of summary judgment to the Respondents on all but one claim of Appellant's habeas corpus petition.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is

not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over

final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory

and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable

interlocutory or collateral order.

We deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the

extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny it.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.

DISMISSED
### SUBCHAPTER VI—EARTH SCIENCE
#### § 1000.18 Office of Executive Director.

The Executive Director with the assistance of the Deputy Executive Director, under the broad direction of the Chairman and in accordance with Commission policy, acts as the chief operating manager of the agency, supporting the development of the agency's budget and operating plan before and after Commission approval, and managing the execution of those plans. The Executive Director has direct line authority over the following directorates and offices: the Office of Financial Management, Planning and Evaluation, the Office of Hazard Identification and Reduction, the Office of Information and Public Affairs, the Office of Compliance and Field Operations, the Office of Human Resources Management, the Office of Information and Technology Services, and the Office of International Programs and Intergovernmental Affairs.
Exhibit 12.1
**CERTIFICATION OF OUR CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
     I, Chi Wen Tsai, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Siliconware Precision Industries Co., Ltd.(the “Company”);
2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;
3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report;
4.  The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the Company and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the Company, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;  (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and  (c)  Disclosed in this annual report any change in the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by thisannual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.
5.  The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the Company’s auditors and the Company’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent function):
 (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal controls over financial reporting, which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal controls overfinancial reporting.
Date: June 10, 2005      By:     /s/ Chi Wen Tsai      Name: Chi Wen Tsai  Title:   Chief Executive Officer
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 North American Natural Gas, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended April 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jim Glavas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

| | JIM GLAVASJim Glavas
Chief Executive Officer
July 27, 2006
| | ----------------------------------------------------------

















---
EXHIBIT
23.1




CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




The Board
of Directors


Avistar
Communications Corporation:




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
333-142001, 333-115755, 333-43944 and 333-63914) on Form S-8 of Avistar
Communications Corporation of our report dated March 30, 2009 with respect
to the consolidated balance sheets of Avistar Communications Corporation and its
subsidiary as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders’ equity (deficit), and cash flows for
each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2008, and the
related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the
December 31, 2008 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Avistar Communications
Corporation.




/s/
      BURR, PILGER & MAYER LLPSan
      Jose, CaliforniaMarch 31,
      2009
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

8894132 CANADA INC., et al.

, Appellant,

v.

TCA GLOBAL CREDIT MASTER FUND, LP
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 3300

[ December 29, 2022 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Carlos A. Rodriguez , Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE

- 19

- 000406 (14)

.

Aliette D. Rodz and Jerel C. Dawson of Shutts & Bowen LLP, Miami , for appellant s

.

Aaron S. Blynn and Brett M. Halsey of Genovese Joblove & Battista,

Miami , for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, L EVINE and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
H. R. 3556 

One Hundred Twelfth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twelve 

An Act 

To designate the new United States courthouse in Buffalo, New York, as the 

‘‘Robert H. Jackson United States Courthouse’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

The United States courthouse at 2 Niagara Square, Buffalo, 

New York shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Robert H. Jackson 

United States Courthouse’’. 

SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, 

or other record of the United States to the United States courthouse 

referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the 

‘‘Robert H. Jackson United States Courthouse’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
[T HE S TATE EX REL .] ON E NVIRONMENTAL S ERVICES , A PPELLANT , v. I NDUSTRIAL C OMMISSION OF O HIO ET AL ., A PPELLEES
. [Cite as State ex rel. ON Environmental Serv. v. Indus. Comm. (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] Workers’ compensation — Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. (No. 97-1613 — Submitted October 27, 1998 — Decided December 30, 1998.)

A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 96APD07-908.

__________________ Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, L.P.A., George H. Rosin and Grant M. Yoakum , for appellant. Betty D. Montgomery , Attorney General, and William J. McDonald , Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. Brian & Brian and Richard F. Brian , for appellee Michelle K. Berns.

__________________ The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with the opinion of the court of appeals. M OYER , C.J., D OUGLAS , F.E. S WEENEY and C OOK , JJ., concur. R ESNICK , P FEIFER and L UNDBERG S TRATTON , JJ., dissent.

__________________ L UNDBERG S TRATTON , J., dissenting. I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals on the basi s that the landfill operat ion does not qualify as “construction.” Therefore, I respectfully dissent. R ESNICK and P FEIFER , JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-14-0050 - Status of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Response to the Open Government Directive

Accession Number: ML14101A102

Date Released: Tuesday, May 13, 2014

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.
    - ML14101A081 - SECY-14-0050 - Status of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Response to the Open Government Directive (6 page(s), 4/25/2014)
    - ML14101A097 - SECY-14-0050 - Enclosure - Open Government Plan Addendum: Activities for 2014-2015 (30 page(s), 4/25/2014)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
##### 



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. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Chi Wen Tsai, the President and 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: June 26, 2003

| |  |                                                               
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | By: /s/ Chi Wen Tsai                                          
| |  |                                                               
| |  | Name: Chi Wen Tsai
Title:   President; 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 Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
|- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

APR 11 2003

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

MARSHALL SHANNON

HETCHLER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

vs.

MIKE ADDISON, Warden; RONALD

ANDERSON, Asst. General Counsel,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 02-7089

(D.C. No. 01-CV-421-P)

(E.D. Okla.)

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION

FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Before KELLY, BRISCOE, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

Mr. Hetchler, an inmate appearing pro se, seeks to appeal from the

dismissal of his habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Upon

motion of respondents, the district court dismissed the action as beyond the oneyear limitation period in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) and denied appointment of counsel. 

For this court to have jurisdiction over his appeal, a certificate of

appealability (“COA”) must be granted. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct. 1029,

1039 (2003). Where, as here, the district court has denied the petition on

procedural grounds without deciding the merits, a COA requires a showing “that

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim
- 2 -

of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it

debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

With those standards in mind, we have considered the district court’s order

holding that the limitations period began to run after Mr. Hetchler exhausted his

administrative remedies on March 2, 2001, that state proceedings filed after the

one-year deadline did not toll the limitations period, that the federal petition is

not timely filed and equitable tolling is not available. R. Doc. 30. After

conducting an overview of Mr. Hetchler’s claims and conducting a general

assessment of their merits as required by Miller-El, 123 S. Ct. at 1039, we come

to the following conclusion. Mr. Hetchler has not demonstrated that the district

court’s conclusions are debatable, let alone wrong and the district court did not

abuse its considerable discretion in declining to appoint counsel.

The application for a COA is denied and this matter is DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
### Part C—High-Performance Federal Buildings
§ 1605.7 Depositions. ( a ) The Commission may order and, by subpoena, may compel testimony to be taken by deposition at any stage of any investigation. Such depositions may be taken before any person designated by the Commission who has the power to administer oaths. The testimony given shall be reduced to writing by the person taking the deposition or under such person's direction and shall then be submitted to the deponent for signature unless the deponent waives the right to sign the deposition. All depositions shall be closed to the public, unless otherwise ordered by the Commission. The release of the record of such depositions shall be governed by the Commission's regulations under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, and/or other applicable laws or regulations.
( b ) Any changes in form or substance which the deponent desires to make shall state the reasons for such changes. The deposition shall then be signed by the deponent, unless the deponent waives the right to sign, cannot be found, or is unable or refuses to sign. If the deposition is not signed by the deponent within 30 days of its submission to the deponent, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, the Commission designee shall sign it and state on the record the fact of the waiver of the right to sign or of the illness or absence of the deponent, or the fact of the deponent's inability or refusal to sign together with the reason, if any, given therefor. The deposition referred to herein may be used in any investigation or any administrative or judical adjudicative proceeding.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6328

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TERRY C. HOFFMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Robert Earl Maxwell, District

Judge. (CR-91-84, CA-96-16-2)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 9, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry C. Hoffman, Appellant Pro Se. David Earl Godwin, Assistant

United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning

of the district court. United States v. Hoffman, Nos. CR-91-84; CA96-16-2 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 18, 1996). 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.

DISMISSED
### Part D—Correctional Institutions
### SUBCHAPTER V—CORPORATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(b) OR 15d-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of DTS, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jon E. Kirchner, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|                      |  |     |  |                                                                          
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: August 10, 2009 |  |     |  |                                                                          
|                      |  | By: |  | /s/ JON E. KIRCHNER Jon E. Kirchner President and 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 DTS, Inc. and will be retained by
DTS, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.

---



QuickLinks
### SUBCHAPTER IV—PROHIBITION AGAINST FUTURE USE OF LEAD-BASED PAINT
§ 1616.36 Use of alternate apparatus or procedures for tests for guaranty purposes. ( a ) Section 8(a) of the Flammable Fabrics Act (FFA, 15 U.S.C. 1197(a)) provides that no person shall be subject to criminal prosecution under section 7 of the FFA (15 U.S.C. 1196) for a violation of section 3 of the FFA (15 U.S.C. 1192) if that person establishes a guaranty received in good faith which meets all requirements set forth in section 8 of the FFA. One of those requirements is that the guaranty must be based upon “reasonable and representative tests” in accordance with the applicable standard.
( b ) Section 1616.31(e) of the regulations implementing the Standard for the Flammability of Children's Sleepwear: Sizes 7 through 14 (the Standard) provides that for purposes of supporting guaranties issued in accordance with section 8 of the FFA for items subject to the Standard, “reasonable and representative tests” are tests “performed pursuant to any sampling plan or authorized alternative sampling plan engaged in pursuant to the requirements of the Standard.”
( c ) At § 1616.35, the Commission has set forth conditions under which the Commission will approve the use of test apparatus or procedures other than those prescribed in the Standard for purposes of demonstrating compliance with the requirements of the Standard. Any person or firm meeting the requirements of § 1616.35 for use of alternate test apparatus or procedure for compliance with the Standard may also use such alternate test apparatus or procedure under the same conditions for purposes of conducting “reasonable and representative tests” to support guaranties of items subject to the Standard, following any sampling plan prescribed by the Standard or any approved alternate sampling plan.
( d ) The Commission will test fabrics and garments subject to the Standard for compliance with the Standard using the apparatus and procedures set forth in the Standard. The Commission will consider any failing results from compliance testing as evidence that the person or firm using alternate test apparatus or procedures has furnished a false guaranty in violation of section 8(b) of the FFA (15 U.S.C. 1197(b)).
(Sec. 5, Pub. L. 90-189, 81 Stat. 569, 15 U.S.C. 1194; Sec. 30(b), Pub. L. 92-573, 86 Stat. 1231, 15 U.S.C. 2079(b))
[48 FR 21316, May 12, 1983]
#### Minna N. Sophian, Respondent, v. Lawrence H. Sophian, Appellant.

Present — Peek, P. J., Glennon, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.; Glennon and Shientag, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm.