alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 19.9-2 Commencement and termination. ( a ) The pension of a former spouse under this subsection commences on the latter of the day the principal becomes entitled to a Foreign Service annuity or on the first day of the month in which the divorce becomes final. (Suspension or reduction of a Foreign Service annuity because or reemployment does not affect the commencement of a pension to a former spouse.) In the case of any former spouse of a disability annuitant, the pension of such former spouse shall commence on the latter of: ( 1 ) The date the principal would qualify for an annuity (other than a disability annuity) on the basis of his/her creditable service;
( 2 ) The date the disability annuity begins; or
( 3 ) The first of the month in which the divorce becomes final.
( b ) The pension of a former spouse and the right thereto terminate on: ( 1 ) The last day of the month before the former spouse dies or remarries before 60 years of age; or
( 2 ) The date the annuity of the former participant terminates unless the termination results from recall, reappointment or reinstatement in the Foreign Service or reemployment in Government service.
§ 1305.2 Definitions. For purposes of this part: ( a ) *Demand* means a request, order, or subpoena for testimony or documents related to or for possible use in a legal proceeding.
( b ) *Document* means any record or other property, no matter what media and including copies thereof, held by MCC, including without limitation, official letters, telegrams, memoranda, reports, studies, calendar and diary entries, maps, graphs, pamphlets, notes, charts, tabulations, analyses, statistical or informational accumulations, any kind of summaries of meetings and conversations, film impressions, magnetic tapes and sound or mechanical reproductions.
( c ) *Employee* means all employees and officers of MCC, including contractors who have been appointed by, or are subject to the supervision, jurisdiction or control of MCC. The procedures established within this part also apply to former employees and contractors of MCC.
( d ) *General Counsel* means the General Counsel or MCC employee to whom the General Counsel has delegated authority to act under this subpart.
#### § 192.4 Notification of eligible persons.

The Director General of the Foreign Service for the Department of State, or other Agency Head in domestic situations, shall be responsible for notifying each individual determined to be eligible for benefits under the Act, or if that person is not available, a representative or family member of the eligible individual.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3431 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3431

 To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
from granting a waiver under section 211(f)(4) of the Clean Air Act for 
any fuel or fuel additive that will reduce fuel efficiency or cause or 
                      contribute to engine damage.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 15, 2011

Mr. Sensenbrenner introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
from granting a waiver under section 211(f)(4) of the Clean Air Act for 
any fuel or fuel additive that will reduce fuel efficiency or cause or 
                      contribute to engine damage.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION AGAINST WAIVERS FOR FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES 
              THAT REDUCE FUEL EFFICIENCY OR CAUSE OR CONTRIBUTE TO 
              ENGINE DAMAGE.

    Paragraph (4) of section 211(f) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 
7545(f)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``(4)'' and inserting ``(4)(A)'';
            (2) by striking ``The Administrator shall take final 
        action'' and inserting the following:
                    ``(B) The Administrator shall take final action''; 
                and
            (3) in subparagraph (A) (as so designated by paragraph (1) 
        of this section)--
                    (A) by striking ``if he determines that the 
                applicant has established that such fuel or fuel 
                additive'' and inserting the following: ``if he 
                determines that the applicant has established that--
                    ``(i) such fuel or fuel additive'';
                    (B) by striking ``and 213(a).'' and inserting ``and 
                213(a);''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
                            ``(ii) such fuel or fuel additive will not 
                        reduce the fuel efficiency of the vehicle or 
                        engine in which such fuel or fuel additive is 
                        used; and
                            ``(iii) such fuel or fuel additive will not 
                        cause or contribute to any damage to the 
                        vehicle engine (or any component thereof) in 
                        which such fuel or fuel additive is used.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 301.300b Form 300-B, for report of all fails to deliver.

This form shall be filed as required by § 300.303 of this chapter with the trustee in a proceeding under section 5 of the Act by a broker-dealer who executed transactions out of which arose open contractual commitments, as defined by § 300.300(c) of this chapter, with the debtor in the proceeding. The form shall be used to report all the fails to deliver, as defined by § 300.300(b) of this chapter, that were open on the filing date, as well as any subsequent closeouts. This form shall accompany the form described in § 300.300a.

###### Editorial Note

#### Editorial Note:

For Federal Register citations affecting Form 300-B, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Raymond Patrick JIMENEZ, Appellant.

No. 06-1835.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 5, 2007.

Filed: Sept. 18, 2007.

David L. Owen, Jr., Asst. Fed. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO (Raymond C. Conrad, Jr., Fed. Public Defender, on the brief), for appellant. '

Kathleen D. Mahoney, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, for appellee.

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Raymond Patrick Jimenez pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846, and the district court1 sentenced him to 121 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. Jimenez appeals, and his counsel has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the government’s failure to move for a downward departure, and the assessment of two criminal history points for his prior sentences. We affirm.

The plea agreement did not include language discussing the possibility of a downward departure in exchange for substantial assistance, *see United States v. Godinez,*474 F.3d 1039, 1044 (8th Cir. 2007) (noting government does not have duty to move to depart based on substantial assistance unless plea agreement created one), and Jimenez did not attempt at sentencing to overcome the presumption of validity accompanying his prior state convictions cited in the presentence report, *see United States v. Moore,*245 F.3d 1023, 1025 (8th Cir.2001), or to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his convictions were constitutionally invalid, *see United States v. Stapleton,*316 F.3d 754, 756 (8th Cir.2003). Rather, defense counsel conceded that he had obtained the records for the conviction questioned by Jimenez, and that the conviction was valid; and we find that the court’s criminal history calculation was correct, *see*U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(c); § 4A1.2(c)(l).

Having reviewed the record independently under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. We note, however, that the oral pronouncement of Jimenez’s sentence, which governs, conflicts with the written judgment. *See United States v. Weir,*724 F.2d 94, 95 (8th Cir.1984) (per curiam) (oral sentence and not written order constitutes actual judgment of court); *United States v. Raftis,*427 F.2d 1145, 1146 (8th Cir.1970) (per curiam) (oral pronouncement prevails over contrary judgment). We therefore direct the district court to modify the written judgment, which cur*373rently reflects a sentence of 120 months in prison, to conform to the oral pronouncement of a 121-month sentence.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, as modified, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw on condition that counsel inform appellant about the procedures for filing petitions for rehearing and for certiorari.

1

. The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
Exhibit 32.1

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


         In  connection  with the  accompanying  Quarterly  Report  of  Internet
Infinity,  Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended  September
30, 2006 (the "Report"),  I, George P. Morris,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the
Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78o(d)); and

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

Dated:  November 13, 2006
                                                         /s/ George P. Morris
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         George P. Morris
                                                         Chief Financial Officer


         The above  certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.  ss.1350)  and is not being filed as
part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.
### §425. United States Navy Band; United States Marine Corps Band: allowances while on concert tour

While on concert tours approved by the President, the members of the United States Navy Band and the United States Marine Corps Band do not forfeit allowances.

(Pub. L. 87–649, Sept. 7, 1962, 76 Stat. 480.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 425 | 10:6224. | [None.] |

The words "do not forfeit" are substituted for the words "lose no" for clarity.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Delegation of Functions

Functions of President under this section delegated to Secretary of Defense, see section 1(14) of Ex. Ord. No. 11390, Jan. 22, 1968, 33 F.R. 841, set out as a note under section 301 of Title 3, The President.
#### Richard PLESTINA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Douglas R. BAETZ; Glenn M. Gallant, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-56089.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 9, 2007.*

Filed March 14, 2007.

Darren J. Quinn, Esq., Del Mar, CA, Thomas D. Mauriello, Esq., Law Offices of

Thomas D. Mauriello, San Clemente, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Ernest A. Martz, Esq., Torrance, CA, Judith A. Jarvis, Esq., Law Offices of Judith A. Jarvis, P.A., Daniel Eckstein, Law Offices of Daniel N. Eckstein, Fort Laud-erdale, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: GOODWIN, BEEZER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

This case involves the tail-end of an action to recover for alleged securities violations. Richard Plestina appeals the district court’s orders granting defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings as to his securities claims and denying plaintiffs motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment and motion for leave to file an amended complaint.

Plestina does not contest that his pleadings were insufficient to withstand defendants’ motion for judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Rather, his sole assertion is that the district court should have allowed him to amend the complaint as to his securities claims. But Plestina failed to move to amend under Rule 15(a), in compliance with local rules, until after judgment had been entered. Once judgment was entered, the district court lacked the authority to review a Rule 15(a) motion unless the court reopened the *471judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e). *See Weeks v. Bayer,*246 F.3d 1231, 1236 (9th Cir.2001); *Lindauer v. Rogers,*91 F.3d 1355, 1357 (9th Cir.1996).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs Rule 59(e) motion. *See Zimmerman v. City of Oakland,*255 F.3d 734, 737 (9th Cir.2001). Absent highly unusual circumstances not present in this case, a Rule 59(e) motion may only be granted “if (1) the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law.” *Id.*at 740. Plestina does not identify any newly discovered evidence or an intervening change in law. His argument that the district court’s failure to allow leave to amend the complaint constituted clear error and was manifestly unjust fails for the reason cited above. To permit Plestina to amend the complaint post-judgment — in light of his failure to move to amend within the three years the complaint was pending, despite having notice of the pleading’s deficiencies since March 2002 — would “grant him the forbidden second bite at the apple” and defeat the sound limits on reopening judgments under Rule 59. *Weeks,*246 F.3d at 1236 (internal quotation marks omitted).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit No. 32

Certification of
Steven J. Smith, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and Andre J. Fernandez, Executive
Vice President, Finance & Strategy and Chief Financial Officer of Journal
Communications, Inc., pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Solely for the purposes of complying
with 18 U.S.C. s.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, we, the undersigned Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and the Executive Vice
President, Finance & Strategy and Chief Financial Officer of Journal Communications,
Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 28, 2009 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

/s/ Steven J. Smith   Steven J. Smith, Chairman
and Chief Executive OfficerJuly 30, 2009

/s/ Andre J. Fernandez  Andre J. Fernandez, Executive Vice
President, Finance & Strategy and Chief Financial Officer July 30, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,264
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   97,623
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               102,887
<PP&E>                                       9,584,578
<DEPRECIATION>                                (93,009)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,594,456
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,069
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,594,456
<SALES>                                        134,445
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               134,585
<CGS>                                          112,823
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  112,823
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,953
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,191)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,191)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,191)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4347 Engrossed in House (EH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4347

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To designate the United States courthouse located at 709 West 9th 
   Street in Juneau, Alaska, as the ``Robert Boochever 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 located at 709 West 9th Street in 
Juneau, Alaska, shall be known and designated as the ``Robert Boochever 
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 
Boochever United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 23, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
112th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4347

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To designate the United States courthouse located at 709 West 9th 
   Street in Juneau, Alaska, as the ``Robert Boochever United States 
                             Courthouse''.
```
#### Kenneth Emanuel BAPTISTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-56776.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 2007.*

Filed March 21, 2007.

Kenneth Emanuel Baptiste, Susanville, CA, pro se.

Richard J. Houle, Esq., Houle & Houle, Pasadena, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Kenneth Emanuel Baptiste appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice his state law negligence claim. We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. *See Ove v. Gwinn,*264 F.3d 817, 821 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Baptiste’s state claims after it had granted summary judg*626ment on all claims over which it had original jurisdiction. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); *cf. Bahrampour v. Lampert,*356 F.3d 969, 978 (9th Cir.2004).

The remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
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 Reynolds Consumer Products Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lance Mitchell, President and Chief Executive Officer, 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 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. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Date: March 10, 2020 |   | By:    | /s/ Lance Mitchell               |
|----------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                 |   |   | Lance Mitchell                        |
|                 |   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
Order entered April 8, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01510-CR

THOMAS GRADY LAYTON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 366-82182-10

ORDER

On February 18, 2014, the Court granted Official Court Reporter Niki D. Garcia’s request 

for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record. The time to file the reporter’s record was 

extended to March 11, 2014. The reporter’s record has not been filed nor has Garcia 

communicated with the Court regarding why the reporter’s record is overdue.

We ORDER Niki D. Garcia to file the reporter’s record on or before May 9, 2014. If 

Garcia fails to comply with this order, the Court will order that she not sit as a court reporter 

until the reporter’s record is filed.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE