alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1010. Availability of transcripts

(a) Definition of Agency Proceeding.—In this section, the term "agency proceeding" has the meaning given the term in section 551 of this title.

(b) Availability.—Agencies and advisory committees shall make available to any person, at actual cost of duplication, copies of transcripts of any agency proceeding or advisory committee meeting.

(Pub. L. 117–286, §3(a), Dec. 27, 2022, 136 Stat. 4203.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1010 | 5 U.S.C. App. (FACA §11) | Pub. L. 92–463, §11, Oct. 6, 1972, 86 Stat. 775. |

Section

In subsection (b), the words "Except where prohibited by contractual agreements entered into prior to the effective date of this Act [i.e., 90 days after October 6, 1972]" are omitted as obsolete.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
GENICOM Corporation and Subsidiaries on Form S-8 (FILE Nos. 33-29388, 33-41148,
33-49472, 33-53843 and 333-01845) of our report dated January 29, 1998, on our
audits of the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule of GENICOM Corporation and Subsidiaries as of December 28, 1997 and
December 29, 1996 and for the three fiscal years in the period ended December
28, 1997, which report is included on page F-2 in this Annual Report on Form
10-K.




Coopers & Lybrand, L.L.P.

McLean, Virginia
March 30, 1998


                                     E - 21
### §3316. Preference eligibles; reinstatement

On request of an appointing authority, a preference eligible who has resigned or who has been dismissed or furloughed may be certified for, and appointed to, a position for which he is eligible in the competitive service, an Executive agency, or the government of the District of Columbia.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 421.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 862. | June 27, 1944, ch. 287, §13, 58 Stat. 390. |

Statutes at Large

The word "authority" is substituted for "officer" in recognition of the several appointing authorities named in section 2105(a)(1).

The words "in the competitive service, an Executive agency, or the government of the District of Columbia" are substituted for "in the civil service, Federal, or District of Columbia, or in any establishment, agency, bureau, administration, project, or department, temporary or permanent" on authority of former section 869.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
### §5515. Crediting amounts received for jury or witness service

An amount received by an employee as defined by section 2105 of this title (except an individual whose pay is disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate, the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, or the Chief of the Capitol Police) or an individual employed by the government of the District of Columbia for service as a juror or witness during a period for which he is entitled to leave under section 6322(a) of this title, or is performing official duty under section 6322(b) of this title, shall be credited against pay payable to him by the United States or the District of Columbia with respect to that period.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 478; Pub. L. 91–563, §2(a), Dec. 19, 1970, 84 Stat. 1476; Pub. L. 104–186, title II, §215(5), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1745; Pub. L. 111–145, §7(c)(1), Mar. 4, 2010, 124 Stat. 55.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 30p. | June 29, 1940, ch. 446, §3, 54 Stat. 689. |

Statutes at Large

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2010—Pub. L. 111–145 substituted ", the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, or the Chief of the Capitol Police" for "or the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives".

1996—Pub. L. 104–186 substituted "Chief Administrative Officer" for "Clerk".

1970—Pub. L. 91–563 substituted "jury or witness service" for "jury service in State courts" in section catchline.

Pub. L. 91–563 authorized crediting of amounts received for jury service in courts in the District of Columbia and in territories or possessions of the United States, included amounts received for service as a witness or when performing official duty under section 6322(b) of this title, and excepted individuals whose pay is disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

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

#### Effective Date of 2010 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–145 effective as though enacted as part of section 1018 of Pub. L. 108–7, see section 7(d) of Pub. L. 111–145, set out as a note under section 2107 of this title.
### [§§70301 to 70304. Repealed. Pub. L. 115–10, title IV, §416(b), Mar. 21, 2017, 131 Stat. 35]

Section 70301, Pub. L. 111–314, §3, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3428, set out Congressional findings.

Section 70302, Pub. L. 111–314, §3, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3429, related to purpose, policy, and goals of chapter.

Section 70303, Pub. L. 111–314, §3, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3429, defined "additive cost".

Section 70304, Pub. L. 111–314, §3, Dec. 18, 2010, 124 Stat. 3429, related to duties of Administrator.
# C_2011347EN.01004401.xml

| 26.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 347/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/44

---

Order of the General Court of 6 October 2011 — Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v Commission

(Case T-234/00) (1)

1

2011/C 347/77

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 4, 6.1.2001.

1

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MIKE YELLEN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of

Social Security, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 19-16646

D.C. No. 

1:18-cv-00422-ACK-RT

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

Alan C. Kay, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 8, 2020** 

San Francisco, California

Before: GRABER, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Mike Yellen appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his action

FILED

SEP 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 
challenging the constitutionality of the earnings requirement of Title II of the

Social Security Act, which requires individuals to have worked and paid Social

Security taxes for a certain number of years in order to qualify for Social Security

Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”). Yellen alleges that he was unable to meet

the earnings requirement because he was incarcerated. We have jurisdiction under

18 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Dexter v. Colvin, 731 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2013). Yellen did not

exhaust his administrative remedies, which is a requirement when filing a suit

challenging the denial of an application for DIB. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Dexter,

731 F.3d at 980. The district court properly concluded that Yellen did not meet the

exception to the exhaustion requirement because he did not raise a colorable

constitutional claim that the earnings requirement violates equal protection by

treating him less favorably than an equally disabled claimant who was not

imprisoned and thus able to earn a qualifying income. See Hoye v. Sullivan, 985

F.2d 990, 991 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (judicial review without exhaustion of

administrative remedies is available if the claimant shows that his constitutional

claim is (1) collateral to his benefits claim, (2) colorable, and (3) “one whose

resolution would not serve the purposes of exhaustion”) (internal citations

2
omitted). As we held in Harvell v. Chater, 87 F.3d 371, 373 (9th Cir. 1996) (per

curiam), the earnings requirement comports with the Due Process Clause of the

Fifth Amendment because it is rationally based and free from invidious

discrimination. 

The district court also properly dismissed Yellen’s claim of disability

discrimination in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act

because such a claim may not be brought to recover on a claim for DIB. See 42

U.S.C. § 405(h).

AFFIRMED.

 3
### §101334. Authorization for housing agreements

The Secretary may, pursuant to the authorities contained in this subchapter and subject to the appropriation of necessary funds in advance, enter into housing agreements with housing entities under which the housing entities may develop, construct, rehabilitate, or manage housing, located on or off public land, for rent to Service employees who meet the housing eligibility criteria developed by the Secretary pursuant to this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3127.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 101334 | 16 U.S.C. 17o(6). | Pub. L. 104–333, div. I, title VIII, §814(a)(6), Nov. 12, 1996, 110 Stat. 4191; Pub. L. 106–176, title I, §120(a)(1)(A), Mar. 10, 2000, 114 Stat. 28. |

Section

The words "For those units of the National Park System for which the review required by paragraphs (3) and (5) has been completed" are omitted as obsolete. The words "or lease" are omitted to distinguish between leasing property and renting employee housing.
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 84021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28446]



[[Page 84021]]

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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail 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 23, 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 
December 11, 2020, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 683 to Competitive Product 
List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2021-44, 
CP2021-45.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2020-28446 Filed 12-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
**Exhibit 31.1CERTIFICATIONS**

     I,  W. Jennings Duncan, President,certify that:     1.     I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-K of CNB Corporation;

     2.     Based on myknowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report.

     3.     Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, andfor, the periods presented in this annual report;

     4.     The registrant'sother certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchangeAct Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensurethat material information  relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosurecontrols and procedures as of the end of the period reported in thisannual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)   presented in this annual report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on ourevaluation as of the Evaluation Date;     5.     The registrant'sother certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation ofinternal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's abilityto record, process, and summarize and report financial data and have identified forthe registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant'sinternal controls; and

     6.     The registrant'sother certifying officers and I have indicated in thisannual Report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or inotherfactors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to thedate of ourmost recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard tosignificantdeficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  March 9, 2004                              /S/W.Jennings Duncan                                                                 W.Jennings Duncan                                                               President
# C_2008327EN.01002303.xml

| 20.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 327/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 327/23

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 September 2008 — Regione Siciliana v Commission

(Case T-363/03) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - ERDF - Cancellation of a financial contribution - Recovery of the sums already paid - Regional or local entity - Lack of direct effect - Inadmissibility)

(2008/C 327/43)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Regione Siciliana (Italy) (represented by: A. Cingolo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. de March and L. Flynn, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

First, application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2003) 2890 final of 13 August 2003 concerning cancellation of the contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) granted to the applicant by Commission Decision C(90) 2363 025 of 14 December 1990 in respect of an infrastructure project in Sicily and the recovery of the sums already paid by the Commission in connection with that contribution; secondly, application for annulment of Commission debit note No 3240504102 of 26 September 2003; and, thirdly, annulment of any other connected or prior measure

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Regione Siciliana is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Regione Siciliana is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 304, 13.12.2003.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                              93
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   52,859
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,121
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,447
<PP&E>                                          53,515
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,696
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  81,982
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,290
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           734
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,290
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    81,892
<SALES>                                         20,021
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               116,423
<CGS>                                           15,319
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  102,444
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,135
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    16
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (72)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,916
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,043
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,873
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,873
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .46
        

</TABLE>
### §10702. "State" defined

As used in this chapter, the term "State" includes the District of Columbia.

(Pub. L. 89–110, title III, §302, as added Pub. L. 91–285, §6, June 22, 1970, 84 Stat. 318; amended Pub. L. 94–73, title IV, §407, Aug. 6, 1975, 89 Stat. 405.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 1973bb–1 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

#### Amendments

1975—Pub. L. 94–73 substituted definition of State for provisions prohibiting denial of right to vote because of age.
# C_2008285EN.01003302.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/33

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2008 — Nortrail Transport v Commission

(Case T-496/04) (1)

1

(Customs Union - External Community transit operation - Fishery products originating in Norway - Application for remission and repayment of import duties - Fairness clause - Regulations (EEC) No 2913/92 and No 2454/93 - Special situation - Retroactive opening of tariff quotas)

(2008/C 285/59)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Nortrail Transport GmbH (Kiel, Germany) (represented by: J. Krause, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by B. Schima and J. Hottiaux, then by B. Schima and M. Patakia, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision REM 15/02 of 1 October 2004, finding that the repayment of import duties to the applicant, which are the subject of the application made by the Federal Republic of Germany, is not justified.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Nortrail Transport GmbH to bear its own expenses and to pay the expenses incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Nortrail Transport GmbH to bear its own expenses and to pay the expenses incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.

1

---
Exhibit 32.1



Section 1350 Certification of the

Chief Executive Officer



I, James R. Bazet, the chief executive officer of Cobra Electronics Corporation, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Cobra Electronics Corporation for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 (the Form 10-Q)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Cobra Electronics Corporation and its subsidiaries.



/s/ James R. BazetJames R. BazetPrincipal Executive OfficerAugust 13, 2004
#### Emma Kuryla et al., Respondents, v Salim Halabi et al., Defendants, Daimler Chrysler Services NA, LLC, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[835 NYS2d 230]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Daimler Chrysler Services NA, LLC, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), dated January 17, 2006, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to amend the complaint to add it as a defendant in the action.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to amend the complaint to add the appellant as a defendant in the action is denied, and the caption is *486amended so as to delete Daimler Chrysler Services NA, LLC, as a defendant.

The Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for leave to amend the complaint to add Daimler Chrysler Services NA, LLC (hereinafter Daimler Chrysler), as a defendant. The cause of action sought to be asserted against Daimler Chrysler was interposed after the effective date of 49 USC § 30106, which bars the plaintiffs from asserting that cause of action against Daimler Chrysler under the circumstances presented here. Moreover, the plaintiffs’ reliance upon the relation-back doctrine to avoid the operation of 49 USC § 30106 is without merit, as that doctrine is potentially available only to save claims which a defendant asserts are barred by a statute of limitations (see *Jones v Bill,*34 AD3d 741, 742 [2006]; *see also Monir v Khandakar,*30 AD3d 487 [2006]; *DeLuca v Baybridge at Bay side Condominium I,*5 AD3d 533, 534 [2004]; *L & L Plumbing & Heating v DePalo,*253 AD2d 517 [1998]), and no statute of limitations defense is implicated in this action.

We do not consider the plaintiffs’ alternative contention, as it is asserted for the first time on appeal (see *Militrano v Lederle Labs.,*26 AD3d 475, 478 [2006]; *Lang v Cohalan,*127 AD2d 17, 21 [1987]). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Lifson and Dillon, JJ., concur.
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 Constar International Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Michael J. Hoffman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    MICHAEL J.
HOFFMAN                               
|Michael J. Hoffman President and Chief Executive Officer

May 15, 2006
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-10-0000013 31-DEC-2013 07:55 AM