alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### **CHAPTER 80—PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYMENT**

#### SUBCHAPTER I—LOCAL PUBLIC WORKS

Sec.
6701.
Definitions.
6702.
Direct grants; Federal share.
6703.
Grants supplementing Federal contributions under other Federal laws; Federal share.
6704.
Grants providing State or local contributions required under State or local law.
6705.
Limitations on use of grants.
6706.
Implementing rules, regulations, and procedures; criteria; employment of disabled and Vietnam-era veterans; determination of applications for grants.
6707.
Priority and amounts of projects.
6708.
Wage standards for laborers and mechanics; enforcement.
6709.
Sex discrimination; prohibition; enforcement.
6710.
Authorization of appropriations.

#### SUBCHAPTER II—ANTIRECESSION PROVISIONS

6721.
Congressional findings of fact and declaration of policy.
6722.
Financial assistance.
6723.
Allocation of amounts.
6724.
Uses of payments.
6725.
Statement of assurances as prerequisite for payments; rules governing time and manner of filing; contents of statement.
6726.
Repealed.
6727.
Nondiscrimination.
6728.
Wage standards for laborers and mechanics; enforcement.
6729.
Reports to Secretary by States and local governments; contents.
6730.
Payments.
6731.
Economization by State and local governments; statement of assurances, etc., required.
6732.
Withholding of payments for failure to comply with statement of assurances; procedures applicable.
6733.
Repealed.
6734.
Administration; rules; authorization of appropriations.
6735.
Program studies and recommendations; evaluation; countercyclical study.
6736.
Authorization of appropriations for Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and Virgin Islands.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3545 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to allow additional transit systems 

greater flexibility with certain public transportation projects. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 1, 2011 

Mr. PITTS (for himself, Mr. PETRI, Mr. HINOJOSA, Mr. HOLDEN, and Mr. 

RIBBLE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 49, United States Code, to allow additional 

transit systems greater flexibility with certain public 

transportation projects. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Transit System Flexi5 bility Protection Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. URBANIZED AREA FORMULA GRANTS. 

7 Section 5307(b)(1) of title 49, United States Code, 

8 is amended— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3545 IH

1 (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and 

2 (F) as subparagraphs (G) and (H), respectively; and 

3 (2) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(E) operating costs, not to exceed 50 per6 cent, of equipment and facilities for use in pub7 lic transportation systems that operate 75 or 

8 fewer buses during peak service hours in an ur9 banized area with a population of at least 

10 200,000; and 

11 ‘‘(F) operating costs not to exceed 25 per12 cent, of equipment and facilities for use in pub13 lic transportation systems that operate a min14 imum of 76 buses and a maximum of 100 buses 

15 during peak service hours in an urbanized area 

16 with a population of at least 200,000.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Criminal No. 46.]

#### TERRITORY OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. FRANCISCO BACA, Appellant.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District in and for the County of Apache.

Sumner Howard, Herndon & Hawkins, and E. M. Sanford, for Appellant.

T. W. Johnson, and Harris Baldwin, for Respondent.

January 13, 1890.

Dismissed.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3592 

To provide that the Postal Service may not close any post office which 

results in more than 10 miles distance (as measured on roads with 

year-round access) between any 2 post offices. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 7, 2011 

Mr. DEFAZIO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To provide that the Postal Service may not close any post 

office which results in more than 10 miles distance (as 

measured on roads with year-round access) between any 

2 post offices. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Rural Post 

5 Offices Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON CLOSING OF POST OFFICES. 

7 Section 404(d) of title 39, United States Code, is 

8 amended by adding at the end the following: 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3592 IH

1 ‘‘(7) Notwithstanding any other provision of this sub2 section, in making any determination under subsection 

3 (a)(3) as to the necessity for the closing or consolidation 

4 of any post office, the Postal Service may not close any 

5 post office which results in more than 10 miles distance 

6 (as measured on roads with year-round access) between 

7 any 2 post offices.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6370

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ERNEST MELVIN TUCKER, a/k/a Sonny Tucker, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CR-95-11, CA-00-108-3) Submitted: July 2, 2002 Decided: July 15, 2002 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ernest Melvin Tucker, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Ernest Melvin Tucker seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Tucker , Nos. CR-95-11; CA-00- 108-3 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 28, 2002). 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
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Russell C. Horowitz, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Marchex, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Marchex, Inc.



|                     |  |  |  |        |  |                           
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | --------------------------
|Date: August 7, 2009 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/    RUSSELL C. HOROWITZ
|                     |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Russell C. Horowitz       
|                     |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer
§ 923.90 General. ( a ) The primary purpose of development grants made pursuant to section 305 of the Act is to assist coastal States in the development of comprehensive coastal management programs that can be approved by the Assistant Administrator. The primary purpose of implementation grants made pursuant to section 306 of the Act is to assist coastal States in implementing coastal management programs following their approval, including especially administrative actions to implement enforceable program policies, authorities and other management techniques. The purpose of the guidelines in this subpart is to define the procedures by which grantees apply for and administer grants under the Act. These guidelines shall be used and interpreted in conjunction with applicable Federal laws and policies, Department of Commerce grants management regulations, policies and procedures, and any other applicable directives from the NOAA Grants Management Division and OCRM program offices.
( b ) Grants awarded to a State must be expended for the development or administration, as appropriate, of a management program that meets the requirements of the Act, and in accordance with the terms of the award.
( c ) All applications for funding under section 305 or 306 of the Act, including proposed work programs, funding priorities and allocations are subject to the discretion of the Assistant Administrator.
( d ) For purposes of this subpart, the term *development grant* means a grant awarded pursuant to subsection 305(a) of the Act. “Administrative grant” and “implementation grant” are used interchangeably and mean grants awarded pursuant to subsection 306(a) of the Act.
( e ) All application and preapplication forms are to be requested from and submitted to: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, Coastal Programs Division, 1305 East-West Highway (N/ORM3), Silver Spring, MD 20910.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 228 (Monday, November 29, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 69370]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26285]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Federal Open Market Committee; Domestic Policy Directive of 
September 21, 2004

    In accordance with Sec.  271.25 of its rules regarding availability 
of information (12 CFR part 271), there is set forth below the domestic 
policy directive issued by the Federal Open Market Committee at its 
meeting held on September 21, 2004.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Copies of the Minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee 
meeting on September 21, 2004, which includes the domestic policy 
directive issued at the meeting, are available upon request to the 
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, D.C. 
20551. The minutes are published in the Federal Reserve Bulletin and 
in the Board's annual report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Federal Open Market Committee seeks monetary and financial 
conditions that will foster price stability and promote sustainable 
growth in output. To further its long-run objectives, the Committee in 
the immediate future seeks conditions in reserve markets consistent 
with increasing the federal funds rate to an average of around 1-3/4 
percent.
    By order of the Federal Open Market Committee, November 18, 2004.

Vincent R. Reinhart,
Secretary, Federal Open Market Committee.
[FR Doc. 04-26285 Field 11-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
Exhibit32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Salomon Smith Barney Orion Futures Fund L.P. (the"Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the periodending September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, David J. Vogel, President and Director of Citigroup Managed FuturesLLC, certify, 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 ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Partnership.

/s/    DavidJ. Vogel

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

David J.VogelCitigroup Managed Futures LLC President and Director

November 9, 2005

----
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Homeland Security Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
 AGENCY: Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
 ACTION: General notice.
 SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (19 U.S.C. 1641) and the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 111.51), the following Customs broker national permits are canceled without prejudice. Name
Permit #
Issuing portJ.H. Bachmann, Inc
04-00064
Headquarters.MEC Transport Services Corp
99-00265
Headquarters.
 Dated: November 15, 2004. Jayson P. Ahern, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations.


[FR Doc. 04-26106 Filed 11-24-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4820-02-P
### SUBCHAPTER VII—ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
**Exhibit31.2**

I, Michael I. Williams,certify that:

1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Maine & Maritimes Corporation (theregistrant);

2. Based on my knowledge,this quarterly 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisquarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant’s othercertifying 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 registrant and we have:

 (a) Designed suchdisclosure 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) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures, andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on our evaluation; and

 (c) Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s boardof directors:

 (a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 (b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date:  August 11,  2006                    |
|------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                 |   |
| /s/ Michael I.  Williams                             |   |
| Michael I.  Williams                                 |
| Senior Vice  President & Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
### SUBCHAPTER IX—DISPOSAL OF ASSETS
#### William G. Pike, Plaintiff, v. Balmar Construction Co., Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Norwood Steel and Iron Works, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Present — Nolan, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Mae-Crate, JJ. [See *ante,*p. 590.]
§ 762.1 Scope. In this part, references to the EAR are references to 15 CFR chapter VII, subchapter C. ( a ) *Transactions subject to this part.* The recordkeeping provisions of this part apply to the following transactions: ( 1 ) Transactions involving restrictive trade practices or boycotts described in part 760 of the EAR;
( 2 ) Exports of commodities, software, or technology from the United States and any known reexports, transfers (in-country), transshipment, or diversions of items exported from the United States;
( 3 ) Exports to Canada, if, at any stage in the transaction, it appears that a person in a country other than the United States or Canada has an interest therein, or that the item involved is to be reexported, transshipped, or diverted from Canada to another foreign country; or
( 4 ) Any other transactions subject to the EAR, including, but not limited to, the prohibitions against servicing, forwarding and other actions for or on behalf of end-users of proliferation concern contained in §§ 736.2(b)(7) and 744.6 of the EAR. This part also applies to all negotiations connected with those transactions, except that for export control matters a mere preliminary inquiry or offer to do business and negative response thereto shall not constitute negotiations, unless the inquiry or offer to do business proposes a transaction that a reasonably prudent exporter would believe likely to lead to a violation of the EAA, the EAR or any order, license or authorization issued thereunder.
( b ) *Persons subject to this part.* Any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who, as principal or agent (including a forwarding agent), participates in any transaction described in paragraph (a) of this section, and any person in the United States or abroad who is required to make and maintain records under any provision of the EAR, shall keep and maintain all records described in § 762.2 of this part that are made or obtained by that person and shall produce them in a manner provided by § 762.7 of this part.
[61 FR 12900, Mar. 25, 1996, as amended at 70 FR 22249, Apr. 29, 2005; 78 FR 13471, Feb. 28, 2013; 87 FR 57106, Sept. 16, 2022]
* 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. 01-30308

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANDRE PATRICK STAGGERS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CV-378-A

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

September 28, 2001

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Andre Patrick Staggers, federal prisoner #02886-095, seeks a

certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s

dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B). The district court granted Staggers an

evidentiary hearing to develop the factual bases of his habeas

claims. Staggers challenges the district court’s failure to

grant his request for counsel at the evidentiary hearing. Under

Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings,

Staggers was entitled to the appointment of counsel for the

hearing. United States v. Vasquez, 7 F.3d 81 (5th Cir. 1993). 
O R D E R

No. 01-30308

- 2 -

His motion for COA is therefore GRANTED. The district court’s

judgment is VACATED and this case is REMANDED for proceedings

consistent with this opinion.
OFFICE OF THE A-ITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

HonorabXe mnin H. Brown, Jr. 

Crlelml Ziatriat Attorney 

l%rt Worth, Texae 

Dear Sir: 

m taxatlolL 

requr8t for an . 

n-es ,xQmptlon 

srrltl of Texa6 

lanrl Saholarehip 

ty by Ceotg;s Ewg;gr, Exr”ba 8~emea aa buyerfor the Btm1-4 of Regents, 

the earn*), on Deeember 81, 

vl8ea that thie deed wa8 not plaard of 

RII you asked are aa toIlowtir 

property In qwetion exempt taco tua2. i3ae the ComnLee~onere~ Court of Tarrant County 

lmrful authority to exempt tliis property from taxa2loa Sor 

th8 jreAP 1940 Ana fUtUPch JWIAP8? 

Bs our opInlcn No. O-W61 we held thi@ 9repertj 

20 bs exe& from taxation. A aopy of that opinion ie aWaOh9Q hereto. 

130 
Honorable *amin H. Wown, Jr., Page 2 

Your requeot atate that the iAnd vae a66866ed 

for tuec by the Commi6610ner61 Court for the Jr8AP 19SQ 

nne you besir by your question No. 1 to be aerbiea as to 

whether ths property is exempt or not for that year, in 

view of the faot that the deed vae not reoomlecl until Juno 

6, 1939. W6 fine it ufmeoarrar~ to anev6r that qurrtlon 

broaure of the oa88 of State V. Stor611, et 61, 76 S. V. 

(2a) 206 (vrlt refueea), It va6 held that when land revortoa 

to thr State after the 6ale thereof bnd vaa then ared for 

publlo purpoee6, that it va6 not rubjeot to relrure ma 

6al6 to ratiafy a Judgment for l 0hool taxer lrrlsd 1~ th6 

lnterlm. This ca6e 16 oltee with approval in the 0606 of 

Chlldr686 Oounty v. State, 92 8. U. t2a) 1011, by the 8UQrem* Oourt of thfr State. 

You are thtrrefon adrl86tl that the land in quertlon 16 ex6mpt ir4m tuation not only for the rear 1940 

ana ruture year6 but that the 6ame oannot b6 6eiz6a or 60le 

for tuer due for the rear 19S9. 

Tmstlng that the foregoing full7 amavers 74~ 

inquiry, VW APT 

FTRST ASSISTANT 

A'"TORNEY 2. G3C:hlEYfi~ L Y 

Your6 very truly 

ATlWWEX (IEUEEAL OF TEXU
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CO-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, Mark Gatto, Co-Chief Executive Officer and Co-President of ICON Capital Corp., the Manager of the Registrant, in connection with the Quarterly Report of ICON Income Fund Ten, LLC (the “LLC”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Quarterly Report”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2.
The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the LLC.








Date: November 12, 2010





/s/Mark Gatto


Mark Gatto


Co-Chief Executive Officer and Co-President


ICON Capital Corp.


Manager of ICON Income Fund Ten, LLC