alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §26. Isolation of civilians for protection of military, air and naval forces

The Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary of the Navy are authorized and directed to adopt measures for the purpose of assisting the various States in caring for civilian persons whose detention, isolation, quarantine, or commitment to institutions may be found necessary for the protection of the military, air and naval forces of the United States against venereal diseases.

(July 9, 1918, ch. 143, ch. XV, §2, 40 Stat. 886.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

The Secretary of the Air Force was inserted in text under the authority of section 207(a), (f) of act July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title II, 61 Stat. 501, and Secretary of Defense Transfer Order No. 40 [App. A(73)], July 22, 1949. The Department of War was designated the Department of the Army and the title of the Secretary of War was changed to Secretary of the Army by section 205(a) of act July 26, 1947. Sections 205(a) and 207 (a), (f) of act July 26, 1947, were repealed by section 53 of act Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 641. Section 1 of act Aug. 10, 1956, enacted "Title 10, Armed Forces", which in sections 3010 to 3013 and 8010 to 8013 continued the Departments of the Army and Air Force under the administrative supervision of a Secretary of the Army and a Secretary of the Air Force, respectively.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of certain functions insofar as they pertain to the Air Force, and to the extent that they were not previously transferred to the Secretary of the Air Force from the Secretary of the Army, see Secretary of Defense Transfer Order No. 40 [App. A(73)], July 22, 1949.
Comment Info: ================= General Comment:Comment
§ 1006.225 Model activities. NHHBG funds may be used for housing activities under model programs that are: ( a ) Designed to carry out the purposes of the Act and this part; and
( b ) Specifically approved by HUD as appropriate for those purposes.
```

[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 77713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28373]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Ketchikan Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Ketchikan Resource Advisory Committee will meet in 
Ketchikan, Alaska, February 17, 2005. The purpose of this meeting is to 
discuss potential projects under the Secure Rural Schools and Community 
Self-Determination Act of 2000.

DATES: The meeting will be held February 17, 2005.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Southeast Alaska Discovery 
Center Theater (front entrance), 50 Main Street, Ketchikan, Alaska. 
Send written comments to Ketchikan Resource Advisory Committee, c/o 
Acting District Ranger, USDA Forest Service, 3031 Tongass Ave., 
Ketchikan, AK 99901, or electronically to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Kolund, Acting District Ranger, 
Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, (907) 
228-4100.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. Committee 
discussion is limited to Forest Service staff and Committee members. 
However, public input opportunity will be provided and individuals will 
have the opportunity to address the Committee at that time.

    Dated: December 14, 2004.
Forrest Cole,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 04-28373 Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
```
§ 92.37 Authentication procedure. ( a ) The consular officer must compare the foreign official's seal and signature on the document he is asked to authenticate with a specimen of the same official's seal and signature on file either in the Foreign Service office or in a foreign public office to which he has access. If no specimen is available to the consular officer, he should require that each signature and seal be authenticated by some higher official or officials of the foreign government until there appears on the document a seal and signature which he can compare with a specimen available to him. However, this procedure of having a document authenticated by a series of foreign officials should be followed only where unusual circumstances, or the laws or regulations of the foreign country require it.
( b ) Where the State law requires the consular officer's certificate of authentication to show that the foreign official is empowered to perform a particular act, such as administering an oath or taking an acknowledgment, the consular officer must verify the fact that the foreign official is so empowered.
( c ) When the consular officer has satisfactorily identified the foreign seal and signature (and, where required, has verified the authority of the foreign official to perform a particular act), he may then execute a certificate of authentication, either placing this certificate on the document itself if space is available, or appending it to the document on a separate sheet (see § 92.17 on the fastening of notarial certificates).
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         November 25, 2020.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 12, 2020, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 680 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2021-26, CP2021-26.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2020-26130 Filed 11-24-20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
#### In the Matter of Kenneth E. Bernhardt, Appellant, v Alice Sachs et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondents, and Sandra D. Davis et al., Respondents. In the Matter of Miriam J. Klusky et al., Respondents, v Kenneth E. Bernhardt, Appellant, and Joseph J. Previte et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondents.

In proceedings to (1) validate petitions designating Kenneth E. Bernhardt as a candidate in the election to be held on May 3, 1977 for the public position of Member of the New York City Community School Board, District 11, and (2) invalidate the said petitions, the appeals, which have been transferred to this court by an order of the Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, dated April 19, 1977, are from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, both dated April 11, 1977 and made after a hearing, (1) the first of which denied the application to validate the petitions and (2) the second of which granted the application to invalidate the petitions. Judgments affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The candidate’s designating petitions were properly invalidated for the failure of the subscribing witnesses to register the number of signatures contained on each page of the petition in the attestation clause (see *Matter of King v Van Wart,*67 Misc 2d 592, affd 37 AD2d 773). The fact that the cover sheet of each petition may have stated the correct number of total signatures contained therein, is no safeguard against the unauthorized addition of signatures after the individual sheets have been attested to by *599the subscribing witness. Moreover, we have perused copies of the nominating petitions and have found several instances where the date of the attestation is earlier than the date of the signatures on the same sheet. Whether such errors were inadvertent or not, they highlight the important purpose served by the individual numbering requirement of subdivision 3 of ■section 135 of the Election Law. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani and Rabin, JJ., concur.
#### § 50.9 Card of identity.

When authorized by the Department, consular offices or designated nationality examiners may issue a card of identity for travel to the United States to nationals of the United States being deported from a foreign country, to nationals/citizens of the United States involved in a common disaster abroad, or to a returning national of the United States to whom passport services have been denied or withdrawn under the provisions of this part or parts 51 or 53 of this subchapter.

[61 FR 43312, Aug. 22, 1996]
<PAGE>


                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT  
                                      OF             
                         CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                      OF             
                           DNAP HOLDING CORPORATION  


     DNAP Holding Corporation (the "Corporation"), a corporation organized 
and existing under the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the 
"DGCL"), hereby certifies as follows:

     FIRST: That the Board of Directors of the Corporation, at a meeting held 
on February 25, 1999, adopted resolutions proposing and declaring advisable 
the amendments to the Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation set 
forth in ARTICLES FOURTH and FIFTH below, and calling for the submission of 
said amendments to the stockholders of the Corporation for their 
consideration.

     SECOND: That the stockholders of the Corporation, at a meeting held on 
April 28, 1999, approved and adopted these amendments.

     THIRD: That these amendments were duly adopted in accordance with the 
applicable provisions of Section 242 of the DGCL.

     FOURTH: That ARTICLE I of the Certificate of Incorporation of the 
Corporation is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:

          "The name of the Corporation is Bionova Holding Corporation."

     FIFTH: That ARTICLE IV, Section 1, of the Certificate of Incorporation 
of the Corporation is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:

          "Section 1. The total number of shares of all classes of stock 
     which the Corporation shall have authority to issue is Fifty Million Five 
     Thousand (50,005,000) shares, consisting of (1) Fifty Million (50,000,000)
     shares of Common Stock, par value One Cent ($.01) per share ("Common 
     Stock"), and (2) Five Thousand (5,000) shares of Preferred Stock, par 
     value One Cent ($.01) per share ("Preferred Stock")."

     SIXTH: That these amendments to the Certificate of Incorporation of the 
Corporation shall be effective at 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time on the date upon 
which this Certificate of Amendment is filed with the Secretary of State of 
the State of Delaware. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Certificate has been signed 
on behalf of the Corporation on this 28th day of April, 1999.


                                       DNAP HOLDING CORPORATION


                                       By: /s/ ARTHUR H. FINNEL  
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Arthur H. Finnel
                                           Executive Vice President
##### 



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 Quarterly Report of Brantley Capital Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert
P. Pinkas, Chief Executive Officer of Brantley Capital Corporation, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (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. /S/ ROBERT P. PINKASRobert P. Pinkas
Chief Executive Officer
August 16, 2004
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

BARRY J. PORTMAN

Federal Public Defender

RONALD C. TYLER

Assistant Federal Public Defender

450 Golden Gate Avenue

19 th Floor, Box 36106

San Francisco, CA 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7700

Counsel for Defendant DAVIS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DALE DUFFY DAVIS,

Defendant.

_____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 09-0927 MHP

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER TO CONTINUE SENTENCING

HEARING

Current Hearing Date: March 8, 2010

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Judge: Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel

Proposed Hearing Date: March 29, 2010

Time: 9:00 a.m.

STIPULATION

The sentencing hearing in the above-captioned case is currently scheduled for Monday,

March 8, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. Defendant and the government, through their respective counsel,

hereby stipulate that, subject to the court’s approval, the matter be continued to March 29, 2010. 

The reason for the continuance is that defense counsel would like additional time to resolve

factual issues that have arisen during the pre-sentence investigation. 

/ /

/ /

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

TO CONTINUE HEARING;

No. CR 09-0927 MHP 1

Case 3:09-cr-00927-MHP Document 16 Filed 02/23/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

All parties and the probation officer are available on the requested date.

IT IS SO STIPULATED:

Dated: February 22, 2010 ____/s/_________________________

RONALD C. TYLER

Assistant Federal Public Defender

Counsel for Dale Davis

Dated: February 22, 2010 ____/s/_________________________

ROBIN HARRIS

Assistant United States Attorney

[PROPOSED] ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, it is hereby ORDERED that the sentencing hearing in the

aforementioned matter currently set for March 8, 2010 shall be continued to March 29, 2010, at

9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:______________________ _______________________________________

HONORABLE MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Court Judge

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

TO CONTINUE HEARING;

No. CR 09-0927 MHP 2

2/23/2010

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:09-cr-00927-MHP Document 16 Filed 02/23/10 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1999

<CASH>                                            436,110
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   4,139,940
<ALLOWANCES>                                      250,000
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                4,574,318
<PP&E>                                         78,939,290
<DEPRECIATION>                                 32,154,746
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 55,233,883
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           7,272,566
<BONDS>                                         7,150,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           91,586
<OTHER-SE>                                     43,869,731
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   55,233,883
<SALES>                                         7,731,637
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                7,731,637
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   8,234,603
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (545,441)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (545,411)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (545,441)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.07)





</TABLE>
§ 180.535 Protective orders. ( a ) Upon motion of a party or a person from whom discovery is sought or in accordance with § 180.540(c), and for good cause shown, the ALJ may make appropriate orders to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense as a result of the requested discovery request. The order may direct that: ( 1 ) The discovery may not be had;
( 2 ) The discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including at a designated time and place;
( 3 ) The discovery may be had by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery;
( 4 ) Certain matters may not be the subject of discovery, or the scope of discovery may be limited to certain matters;
( 5 ) Discovery may be conducted with no one present other than persons designated by the ALJ;
( 6 ) A trade secret or other confidential research, development or commercial information may not be disclosed, or may be disclosed only in a designated way; or
( 7 ) The party or other person from whom discovery is sought may file specified documents or information under seal to be opened as directed by the ALJ.
( b ) The ALJ may permit a party or other person from whom discovery is sought, who is seeking a protective order, to make all or part of the showing of good cause in camera. If such a showing is made, upon motion of the party or other person from whom discovery is sought, an in camera record of the proceedings may be made. If the ALJ enters a protective order, any in camera record of such showing shall be sealed and preserved and made available to the ALJ or, in the event of appeal, to the Secretary or a court.
#### § 18.3 Director General.

The Director General shall institute and provide for the conduct of disciplinary proceedings involving former employees of the Department as authorized by 18 U.S.C. 207(j), and perform such other duties as are necessary or appropriate to carry out his/her functions under this part.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7006

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER REED, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:17-cr-00138-FL-1)

Submitted: April 14, 2022 Decided: April 18, 2022

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Rudolph A. Ashton, III, DUNN PITTMAN SKINNER & CUSHMAN, 

PLLC, New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States 

Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant 

United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7006 Doc: 32 Filed: 04/18/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Reed, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motions for compassionate release. We review a district court’s order 

granting or denying a compassionate release motion for an abuse of discretion. United 

States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir.) (stating standard of review), cert. denied, 142 

S. Ct. 383 (2021). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did 

not abuse its discretion. The court denied Reed’s motions after concluding that he 

demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons, discussing the applicable 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) factors, and sufficiently explaining the reasons for the denial. See United States 

v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 188-91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount of explanation required 

for denial of compassionate release motion). We therefore affirm the district court’s order. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7006 Doc: 32 Filed: 04/18/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

ALEX R. KESSEL (State Bar No. 110715)

16542 Ventura Blvd.

Suite 305

Encino, California 91436-2746

Telephone: (818) 995-1422

Facsimile: (818) 788-9408

Email: kessellaw@sbcglobal.net

Attorney for Claimant Kap S. Sims

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

APPROXIMATELY $57,378

IN UNITED SATES 

CURRENCY,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.:CV 08-5023-MMC

[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR

TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the counsel, Alex R. Kessel is

permitted to appear telephonically at the case management conference on March 19, 2010 at

10:30am.

Dated:_________ __________________________________

 HONORABLE MAXINE M. CHESNEY

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-05023-MMC Document 26 Filed 03/18/10 Page 1 of 1