alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1491. License, permit, etc., for transportation for storage or storage of spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste; prerequisites; applicability; "territory or possession" defined

(a) Prior to the granting of any license, permit, or other authorization or permission by any agency or instrumentality of the United States to any person for the transportation of spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste for interim, long-term, or permanent storage to or for the storage of such fuel or waste on any territory or possession of the United States, the Secretary of the Interior is directed to transmit to the Congress a detailed report on the proposed transportation or storage plan, and no such license, permit, or other authorization or permission may be granted nor may any such transportation or storage occur unless the proposed transportation or storage plan has been specifically authorized by Act of Congress: Provided, That the provisions of this section shall not apply to the cleanup and rehabilitation of Bikini and Enewetak Atolls.

(b) For the purpose of this section the words "territory or possession" include the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands and any area not within the boundaries of the several States over which the United States claims or exercises sovereignty.

(Pub. L. 96–205, title VI, §605, Mar. 12, 1980, 94 Stat. 90.)

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Termination of Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

For termination of Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, see note set out preceding section 1681 of this title.
EXHIBIT
32.2




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







The
undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of ABC Funding, Inc. (the “Company”),
does hereby certify under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of
18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A Amendment No. 1 of the Company for
the year ended June 30, 2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained
in that Form 10-KSB/A Amendment No. 1 fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:  November
      28, 2008
            
            /s/  Carl A. ChaseCarl
      A. ChaseChief
      Financial Officer and
              (Principal
      Accounting and Financial Officer)




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3409 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3409

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the withholding of 
                   income and social security taxes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 22, 2005

  Mr. Hostettler (for himself, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mrs. Cubin, Mr. 
 Cannon, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Pence, Mr. Flake, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, 
 Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, and Mr. 
    Garrett of New Jersey) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the withholding of 
                   income and social security taxes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Tax Withholding Act of 
2005''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF WITHHOLDING OF INCOME AND SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES.

    (a) In General.--The following sections of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 are hereby repealed:
            (1) Section 3102 (relating to deduction of social security 
        tax from wages).
            (2) Section 3202 (relating to deduction of railroad 
        retirement tax from compensation).
            (3) Chapter 24 (relating to income tax withholding).
    (b) Requirement of Estimated Tax Payments for Employee Social 
Security Taxes.--Subsection (f) of section 6654 of such Code is amended 
by striking ``minus'' at the end of paragraph (2) and inserting 
``plus'', by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4), and by 
inserting after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) the taxes imposed by section 3101(a) and 3201(a), 
        minus''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to amounts paid after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 238 (Thursday, December 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 79535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27073]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Parcel Select Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

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: December 10, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
November 27, 2020, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Parcel Select Contract 39 to Competitive Product 
List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2021-32, 
CP2021-33.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2020-27073 Filed 12-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Editorial Note on Part 1206
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1206 (formerly part 206) appear at 67 FR 19111, Apr. 18, 2002.

§ 1206.301 Value basis for royalty computation. ( a ) The gross value for royalty purposes shall be the sale or contract unit price times the number of units sold, *Provided, however,* That where the authorized officer determines: ( 1 ) That a contract of sale or other business arrangement between the lessee and a purchaser of some or all of the commodities produced from the lease is not a bona fide transaction between independent parties because it is based in whole or in part upon considerations other than the value of the commodities, or
( 2 ) That no bona fide sales price is received for some or all of such commodities because the lessee is consuming them, the authorized officer shall determine their gross value, taking into account: ( i ) All prices received by the lessee in all bona fide transactions,
( ii ) Prices paid for commodities of like quality produced from the same general area, and
( iii ) Such other relevant factors as the authorized officer may deem appropriate; and *Provided further,* That in a situation where an estimated value is used, the authorized officer shall require the payment of such additional royalties, or allow such credits or refunds as may be necessary to adjust royalty payment to reflect the actual gross value.
( b ) The lessee is required to certify that the values reported for royalty purposes are bona fide sales not involving considerations other than the sale of the mineral, and he may be required by the authorized officer to supply supporting information.
[43 FR 10341, Mar. 13, 1978. Redesignated at 48 FR 36588, Aug. 12, 1983, and amended at 48 FR 44795, Sept. 30, 1983. Further redesignated at 51 FR 15212, Apr. 22, 1986. Redesignated at 53 FR 39461, Oct. 7, 1988]
## SERVE D SEPTEMBE R7 , 201 1 U.S
. DEPARTMENTO FTRANSPORTATIO N /'(Ej'y'?¥lSU,9t' ^ 2 OFFIC E O FHEARING S 3 WASHINGTON , D C 4 3 6 I n the Matte r

o f 7 8 CLOU D DANCLRAVIATIO N 9 ANDrtYINGCLUBJNC
. 1 0 1 1 Respondent 

### , iAMSPORTATlO N ^ ^ \.OCi<F TOPERATION S 

### 201 1 SE P

### - 3 A R

^ 3 2 Docket No
. FAA-CPlOSOOUOl (FA A Civi l Penalt

y Proceeding ) DMSNo
. PAA-2010-019 2 1 2 1 3 1 4 ORDE RGRANTIN G RESPONDENT' S MOTIO N 1 5 1 6 T O REOPE N DISCOVER Y AND 1 7 1 8 GRANTING/DENYIN G OTHE RRELIE F 1 9 2 0 On Augus t

25 , 2010 , th e Respondent Clou dDancer

Aviatio n andFlyin g Club , 2 1 Inc
. filedth e following : 1 ) Motio n t o Reopen Discover y and/o r Conside r Pendin g 2 2 Discover

y Motion ; and2 ) Motio n t o Coiiipe l Discovery
. Th e FA A wa s serve dwit

h th e 2 3 Motions , bu

t di dnot file any response . 2 4 2 5 O

n Septembe r

1 , 2011 , th e Respondent

andth e FA

A appeare db y telephon e fo r a 2 6 Litigatio n Schedulin g Conference
. A t tha t time , th e Respondent

mad e a n ora l Motio n to 2 7 Dismis s th e Complaint
. Th e ora l Motio n wa s noted , andth e Responden t wa s directe dto 2 8 .fil e awritte n Motio n wit h supportin g fac

t an dauthority i f

i t wishe dto pursu e aMotio n to 2 9 Dismiss
. Th e Respondent' s Augus t 25 , 201 0 Motion s were discusse dandora l ruling s 3 0 were issued
. 3 1 3 2 I t

I s Hereb y Ordered : 3 3 3 4 1
. Th e Respondent' s Motio n to Reopen Discoveryi s granted
. 3 5 3 6 2
. Th e Respondent' s Motio n to Compe l Discover y i s respectfull y reserved
. I f 3 7 needed , th e Responden t ma y rene w thi s Motio n prio r to Novembe r

18 , 201 1 3 8 (th e discovery cut-of f date)
. 3 9 4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 U.S
. AMqiHjisfrativ e La w Judg e 4 4 4 5 Attachment : Servic e Lis t 4 6FDMSNo
. FAA-2010-0I9 2 (Civi l Penalt y Proceeding ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L & ON E COP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W
. Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W1OOO '

ON E COP Y Denni s R
. Haber , Responden t \ s Counse l Denni s R
. Haber , P
. A
. 892 5 S.W
. 14 8 Street , Suit e 20 0 Miami , F L3317 6 TEL : 305-256-300 2 FAX : 305-256-300 4 Andre aMicliell e Harper , Complaimm l ' s Counse l Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counsel , ASO- 7 Souther n Regio n Federa l Aviatio n Admini.stratio n P.O
. Bo x 2063 6 Atlanta
. G A 3032 0 TEL : 404-305-520 0 FAX : 404-305-522 3 Th e Honorabl e J
. E
. Sullivan , Administrativ e La w Judg e U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Offic e o f Hearings , M-20 , Roo mE l 2-32 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.B
. Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 2 FAX:_202-366-753 6

' Service wa

s b y U.S
. Mail
. Fo

r service i n perso n o r b y expedite dcourier , use th

e followin g address : Hearin g Docket , Federa l Aviatio n Administration , 60

0 Independence Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W1000 , Washington ; D

C 20591 , AHention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk, AGC-430
.
#### Brian Edwards, Appellant, v Patricia Edwards, Respondent.

*978In an action for divorce pursuant to subdivision (6) of section 170 of the Domestic Relations Law, the plaintiff appeals from (1) so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 2, 1976, as, after a nonjury trial, (a) increased the amount of child support payments from $50 per week, per child, to $80 per week, per child, and (b) awarded defendant’s attorney a fee for his representation of the children and (2) an order of the same court, dated January 14, 1977, which, upon granting defendant’s motion to resettle the judgment, directed that payment of the increased child support be retroactive to June 7, 1976. Judgment modified, on the facts, by (1) deleting from the second decretal paragraph thereof the amounts "thirty dollars ($30.00)” and "eighty dollars ($80.00)” and substituting therefor the amounts "twenty dollars ($20.00)” and "seventy dollars ($70.00)”, respectively, and (2) reducing the counsel fee from $1,000 to $500. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, motion denied, and the increased support payments are to be paid as of August 2, 1976. A substantial increase in the salary of the father is sufficient reason, in and of itself, to warrant an increase in child support payments (see *Eisen v Eisen,*48 AD2d 652; *Matter of Handel*v *Handel,*32 AD2d 946, affd 26 NY2d 853). However, we find the increase to be closer to $5,000 per annum than the $6,500 amount relied upon by Special Term. The child support award is therefore reduced accordingly. Further, it is our view that the $1,000 counsel fee was excessive in view of the services performed by defendant’s counsel on behalf of the children. The defendant’s answer and counterclaim did not request additional support for the children. There was no proof of additional need submitted by counsel at the trial. It further appears, from counsel’s affidavit, that his services were performed almost exclusively on behalf of the defendant. Finally, the trial court improperly granted the motion to resettle its judgment of August 2, 1976, so as to provide for payment of the increased child support retroactive to June 7, 1976. Gulotta, J. P., Shapiro, Cohalan and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRAFICO AG, ET AL.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

NANCY YARBROUGH DOSS, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

No. C 09-02773 JCS

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The Court having been advised that the parties have agreed to a settlement of this case,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice; provided,

however, that if any party hereto shall certify to this Court, within forty-five (45) days, with proof of

service of a copy thereon to opposing counsel, that the agreed consideration for said settlement has not

been delivered over, the foregoing Order shall stand vacated and this case shall forthwith be restored

to the calendar to be set for trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2010 __________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02773-JCS Document 48 Filed 02/26/10 Page 1 of 1
(No. 91-CC-1131

#### Donald Tackett, Claimant, *v.*The State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed March 23, 1993.*

Donald Tackett, *pro se,*for Claimant.

Roland W. Burris, Attorney General (Diann K. Marsalek, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

OPINION

Burke, J.

On November 8, 1989, Claimant was an inmate at Pontiac Correctional Center. Following a dental examination, it was determined that Claimants third molar, No. 17, should be extracted. The oral surgery was performed by Dr. Frederick Craig, a board-certified oral surgeon. Dr. Craig was assisted by Dr. Jacqueline Mitchell.

Dr. Craig advised Claimant of possible post-surgical complications prior to the surgery, including the possibil*335ity of numbness. The location of the tooth required that it be cut and then removed in sections to eliminate pressure and possible fracture of the jaw. The surgery was performed without complication. On the day following surgery, Claimant was unable to open his mouth. Dr. Mitchell advised Claimant that it was a normal side effect of the surgery and prescribed a muscle relaxant, a pain medication and a liquid nutrient.

Twelve days after the surgery, Claimant was examined by Dr. Craig. Claimant complained of numbness to his tongue, sensitivity to hot and cold, and a tingling sensation to his tongue. Dr. Craig advised Claimant that the sensations he was experiencing could be temporary or permanent because the lingual nerve, the nerve through the tongue, may have been affected by the removal of the molar. Dr. Craig stated that the post-operative side effects which Claimant experienced were normal, though not common, complications of the surgery.

The issue before this Court is whether the agents of the State of Illinois were negligent in rendering medical treatment to Claimant. The Respondent has a duty of care with respect to the proper health treatment of inmates in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections. The State is required to exercise ordinary and reasonable care for the preservation of a prisoners life and health. *(Peters v. State*(1987), 40 Ill. Ct. Cl. 152, 153.) Allegations of improper medical care are allegations of medical malpractice and must be proved by expert testimony. *(Woods v. State*(1985), 38 Ill. Ct. Cl. 9, 26; *O’Donnell v. State,*34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 12; *Porter v. State*(1965), 25 Ill. Ct. Cl. 62.) The Court may not conclude on its own what is or is not appropriate medical care under the circumstances of the case without the aid of expert testimony. *Peters v. State*(1987), 40 Ill. Ct. Cl. 152, 153-54.

*336In the instant case, the record does not indicate improper or negligent medical care was afforded to the Claimant other than the conclusions of the Claimant. Claimant failed to offer any expert testimony to support his conclusion that he could have been treated differently or that the post-surgical complications from which he. suffers could have been avoided.

Wherefore, it is hereby ordered that Claimant failed to meet his burden of proof and the instant claim is denied.
Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
              (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63
                        of Title 18, United States Code)

     Pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350,  chapter 63 of title 18,  United States Code),  each of
the  undersigned  officers  of  Orsus  Xelent  Technologies,  Inc.,  a  Delaware
corporation (the "Company"),  does hereby certify, to such officer's  knowledge,
that:

     The Annual  Report on Form 10-K for the year ended  December  31, 2005 (the
"Form 10-K") of the Company  fully  complies  with the  requirements  of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained
in the Form 10-K  fairly  presents,  in all  material  respects,  the  financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: March 31, 2006                                      /s/ Wang Xin
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Wang Xin
                                                         Chief Executive Officer


Date: March 31, 2006                                      /s/ Zhao Hongwei
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Zhao Hongwei
                                                         Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-41468

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JULIUS CALVIN CHRISTOPHER,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:16-CR-366-1

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Julius Calvin Christopher has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Christopher has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s 

brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 20, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-41468 Document: 00514279753 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2017
No. 16-41468

2

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-41468 Document: 00514279753 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2017
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsNormalization and Implementation of Three Gravitational Acceleration ModelsUnlike the uniform density spherical shell approximations of Newton, the consequence of spaceflight in the real universe is that gravitational fields are sensitive to the asphericity of their generating central bodies. The gravitational potential of an aspherical central body is typically resolved using spherical harmonic approximations. However, attempting to directly calculate the spherical harmonic approximations results in at least two singularities that must be removed to generalize the method and solve for any possible orbit, including polar orbits. Samuel Pines, Bill Lear, and Robert Gottlieb developed three unique algorithms to eliminate these singularities. This paper documents the methodical normalization of two of the three known formulations for singularity-free gravitational acceleration (namely, the Lear and Gottlieb algorithms) and formulates a general method for defining normalization parameters used to generate normalized Legendre polynomials and Associated Legendre Functions (ALFs) for any algorithm. A treatment of the conventional formulation of the gravitational potential and acceleration is also provided, in addition to a brief overview of the philosophical differences between the three known singularity-free algorithms.Document ID20160011252Acquisition SourceJohnson Space CenterDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsEckman, Randy A.*(NASA Johnson Space Center Houston, TX, United States)*Brown, Aaron J.*(NASA Johnson Space Center Houston, TX, United States)*Adamo, Daniel R.*(Independent astrodynamics consultant)*Gottlieb, Robert G.*(Odyssey Space Research, LLC Houston, TX, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 14, 2016Publication DateJune 1, 2016Subject CategoryAstrodynamicsReport/Patent NumberNASA/TP-2016-218604S-1222JSC-CN-32416Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20160011252.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024