alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §3328. Selective Service registration

(a) An individual—

(1) who was born after December 31, 1959, and is or was required to register under section 3 of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 453); 1 and

(2) who is not so registered or knowingly and willfully did not so register before the requirement terminated or became inapplicable to the individual,

shall be ineligible for appointment to a position in an Executive agency.

(b) The Office of Personnel Management, in consultation with the Director of the Selective Service System, shall prescribe regulations to carry out this section. Such regulations shall include provisions prescribing procedures for the adjudication of determinations of whether a failure to register was knowing and willful. Such procedures shall require that such a determination may not be made if the individual concerned shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the failure to register was neither knowing nor willful. Such procedures may provide that determinations of eligibility under the requirements of this section shall be adjudicated by the Executive agency making the appointment for which the eligibility is determined.

(Added Pub. L. 99–145, title XVI, §1622(a)(1), Nov. 8, 1985, 99 Stat. 777; amended Pub. L. 100–180, div. A, title XII, §1249, Dec. 4, 1987, 101 Stat. 1167.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 3 of the Military Selective Service Act, referred to in subsec. (a)(1), was classified to section 453 of the former Appendix to Title 50, War and National Defense, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as section 3802 of Title 50.

#### Amendments

1987—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 100–180 struck out "within the Office" after "for the adjudication" in second sentence and inserted at end "Such procedures may provide that determinations of eligibility under the requirements of this section shall be adjudicated by the Executive agency making the appointment for which the eligibility is determined."

1 See References in Text note below.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                    THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                                       FEBRUARY 28,
                                                                               -----------------------------
                         (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)                                  2002                 2003
                         ----------------------                                -------              --------
<S>                                                                            <C>                  <C>
Income (Loss) before taxes                                                     $(5,822)             $  2,064
                                                                               -------              --------
Fixed Charges:
  Interest                                                                      11,081                 9,409
  Interest factor portion of rentals                                               454                   454
                                                                               -------              --------
                                                                                11,535                 9,863
                                                                               -------              --------
Earnings before income taxes and fixed charges                                 $ 5,713              $ 11,927
                                                                               =======              ========
Preferred stock dividends accreted                                             $ 3,512              $  3,937
                                                                               =======              ========
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges and preferred stock dividends                   N/A                   N/A
                                                                               =======              ========
Earnings inadequate to cover fixed charges and preferred stock
  Dividends                                                                    $ 9,334              $  1,873
                                                                               =======              ========
</TABLE>
# C_2012138EN.01002102.xml

| 12.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/21

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Mische v Commission

(Case F-70/05) (1)

(Civil service - Appointment - Successful candidate in a competition published before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations but finalised afterwards - Grading under new, less favourable rules)

(2012/C 138/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Harald Mische (Brussels, Belgium) (represented: initially by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers, and subsequently by R. Holland, B. Maluch and J. Mische, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and M. Simm, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the Commission’s decision classifying the applicant at grade A*6 following a competition published before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations but finalised after that date, under the less favourable provisions of those regulations (Article 12 of Annex XIII to Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials)

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union, the intervener, to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union, the intervener, to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 229, 17.9.2005, p. 35 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under the Number T-288/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).

---
### §3938a. Annual notice to members of the Armed Forces regarding child custody protections guaranteed by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act

The Secretaries of each of the military departments shall ensure that each member of the Armed Forces with dependents receives annually, and prior to each deployment, notice of the child custody protections afforded to members of the Armed Forces under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. 3901 et seq.).

(Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title V, §573, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2141.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, referred to in text, is act Oct. 17, 1940, ch. 888, 54 Stat. 1178, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, and not as part of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act which comprises this chapter.
METAL/NONMETAL

Serious Accident

Limestone mine- During a blast, fly rock left the mine site and struck the windshield of 

a pick-up truck traveling by on a public road near the mine site. The driver and the 

passenger both received minor injuries. 

Best Practices

• Consider mine specific conditions and rock strata when designing blasts to 

prevent fly rock. Closely follow mine policies and procedures through all phases 

of the blasting operation. 

• Maintain and use all available methods of communication, such as sirens and 

radios, to warn persons of impending blasting operations. 

• Schedule blasting between shifts or on off-shifts. Utilize suitable blast shelters for 

all persons at the mine site during blasting. 

• Take special precautions to ensure that all roadways and regularly traveled areas 

are blocked to prevent access by persons unaware of an impending blast.

Additional information about the dangers of fly rock can be found in the December 4, 

2013 fatal gram located at http://www.msha.gov/FATALS/2013/FAB13m19.asp when a 

miner initiated a blast and was struck by flyrock. He was standing 153 feet from the 

nearest blast hole and was struck by rock as large as 19 inches long by 14 inches wide 

by 7 inches thick.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-16-0000334

05-SEP-2017

10:34 AM
### Bedded Precambrian iron deposits of the Tobacco Root Mountains, southwestern Montana

By: H. L. James

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1187

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (2573 pdf)                        
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
§ 1656.19 Completion of alternative service. Upon completion of 24 months of creditable time served in alternative service or when released early in accordance with § 1656.16(b) (3) or (4): ( a ) The ASW shall be released from the Alternative Service Program; and
( b ) The Director shall issue to the ASW a Certificate of Completion and the registrant shall be reclassified in Class 4-W in accordance with § 1630.47 of this chapter, and
( c ) The ASW's records shall be returned to the area office of jurisdiction after the ASW has completed his obligation or has been separated from the Alternative Service Program for any reason.
###### Editorial Note on Part 780

#### Editorial Note:

At 82 FR 54949, Nov. 17, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-5, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement removed all amendments to part 780 made effective on Jan. 19, 2017, at 81 FR 93330, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 780.29 Diversions.

Each application shall contain descriptions, including maps and cross sections, of stream channel diversions and other diversions to be constructed within the proposed permit area to achieve compliance with 30 CFR 816.43 of this chapter.

[44 FR 15357, Mar. 13, 1979, as amended at 48 FR 43987, Sept. 26, 1983; 81 FR 93330, Dec. 20, 2016; 82 FR 54949, Nov. 17, 2017]
#### § 2103.41 Reproduction controls.

The Staff Secretary shall maintain records to show the number and distribution of all Top Secret documents, of all documents covered by special access programs distributed outside the originating agency, and of all Secret and Confidential documents that are marked with special dissemination or reproduction limitations.
Apr/26/2024 4:25:43 PM Ryan 40652130 4/4 

IN TEE SUPREME COURT OF TRE STATE OF MONTANA 

SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO, DA 24-0155 

DANIEL R. WOOD, 

Petitioner & Appellant, 

vs. 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Respondent & Appellee. 

Order Granting Extension Of Time 

It is hereby ordered that Daniel Wood is granted an extension of 30 days to 

file the Appellant's Opening Brief. The original due date was April 25th. The 

new deadline is May 24th. 

BY: 

YUSTICE, MTSC 

04/26/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0155
#### PEAVEY *vs.*BURKET.

Taction by non-resident, on promissory note.]

1. *Insufficient security far costs.*— In an action commenced by a non-resident, if insufficient or defective security for tbe costs is given previous to the issue of the summons; (Code, § 2396,) the suit should not be dismissed, but the plaintiff should be allowed to give new and sufficient security.

Appeal from the Chancery Court of Butler.

Tried before the Hon. Nat. Cook.

This action was brought by S. J. Peavey, a non-resident, against John Burket, and was founded on a promissory note. At the trial term, the defendant moved to dismiss the suit, on the ground that the plaintiff had not complied with the statute requiring non-residents, before commencing suit, to give security for the costs. On the trial of this motion, the plaintiff proved that, prior to the issue of the summons, an acknowledgment of liability for costs was endorsed on the complaint by a responsible *142person, in these words : “ I acknowledge myself security for all costs that may be adjudged against the plaintiff in this casewhich was approved by the clerk. The court ruled that this was not sufficient security for the costs, within the meaning of the statute. “ The plaintiff then tendered and offered to give a good and sufficient acknowledgment of security for costs, signed by a responsible person, and approved by the clerk; but the court refused to allow this to be done at this stage of the cause, and dismissed the suit; to which rulings of the court the plaintiff excepted.” The rulings of the court to which exceptions were reserved are now assigned as error.

P. B. Page, for the appellant.

Watts, Judge & Jackson, *contra.*

STONE, J.

In the eases of *Ex parte,*Robbins, 29 Ala. 71, and *Exparte*Camp, at the present term, we defined, to some extent, what will amount to an endorsement of security for costs on the complaint, or a lodgment of it with the clerk, as required by section 2396 of the Code. It is obvious that, to render such security effectual as a compliance with the statute, it must be given in good faith.

In *Ex parte*Morgan, 30 Ala. 51, I expressed the opinion, that when security for costs had been given before the commencement of the suit, “ although imperfect, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has *failed*to give security, and hence the case is not within the provisions of the mandate of the law.” I added that, in rhy judgment, the plaintiff in a case thus circumstanced should be permitted to substitute a new and sufficient bond.

This court now adopts the conclusion announced by me in the ease of *Ex parte*Morgan, and holds that, inasmuch as the security given in this case, although imperfect, was nevertheless given before the suit was instituted, and appears to have had for its object a compliance with the statute, the plaintiff should have been allowed to execute a new and sufficient security.

Reversed and remanded.
# C_2008022EN.01000401.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-404/05) (1)

1

(Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 - Organic production of agricultural products - Private inspection bodies - Requirement of an establishment or permanent infrastructure in the Member State where the services are provided - Justifications - Connection with the exercise of official authority - Article 55 EC - Consumer protection)

(2008/C 22/06)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and G. Braun, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and C.Schulze-Bahr, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC — Freedom to provide services — Requirement for inspection bodies in the field of organic production of agricultural products which are approved in another Member State to have a place of business or permanent infrastructure in Germany

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by requiring of private inspection bodies of organically-farmed products approved in another Member State that they maintain an establishment in Germany in order to be able to provide inspection services there, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by requiring of private inspection bodies of organically-farmed products approved in another Member State that they maintain an establishment in Germany in order to be able to provide inspection services there, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

| 2. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 10 of 14.1.2006.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-51171

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

CARLOS RENE GOMEZ-MURILLO,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:09-CR-744-1

Before KING, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Carlos Rene Gomez-Murillo (Gomez) pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after

deportation and now appeals his 30-month within-guidelines range sentence of

imprisonment. Gomez argues that the sentence imposed is substantively

unreasonable for several reasons.

Because Gomez did not object to the reasonableness of his sentence, we

review for plain error. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th

Cir. 2007). We have rejected Gomez’s argument that by effectively “doubleUnited States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 26, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 09-51171 Document: 00511216208 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/26/2010
No. 09-51171

counting” the criminal history of illegal immigrants the applicable guidelines

range overstates the risk of recidivism and the seriousness of the offense. See

United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct.

378 (2009). Gomez concedes that his contention that his within-guidelines range

sentence should not be afforded a presumption of reasonableness because United

States Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.2 is not supported by an empirical basis is

foreclosed. United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S.Ct. 192 (2009).

Gomez also asserts that his sentence is substantively unreasonable

because it does not properly account for his mitigating history and

characteristics, including his motives for returning to the country. However, the

district court concluded that the sentence was appropriate in light of all of the

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and this court must give deference to that

conclusion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Gomez fails to

rebut the presumption of reasonableness afforded his within-guidelines

sentence, see United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006), and has

not demonstrated plain error. See Peltier, 505 F.3d at 391-92. Accordingly, the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 09-51171 Document: 00511216208 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/26/2010
#### Edward T. Roehner v. Association of the Bar of the City of New York.

Motion for an order settling costs denied. The costs have been taxed and the appropriate application is for retaxation in accordance with section 1536 of the Civil Practice Act. Concur — Breitel, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Steven G. Larson, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-Q of LaserCard Corporation, a Delaware corporation (“registrant”), for the quarterly period ending June 30, 2006;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.  The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant andhave:

(a)  Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)  Designed suchinternal control over financial reporting or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordancewith generally accepted accounting principle.

(c)  Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d)  Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

5.  The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:

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

(b)  Any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date: August 9, 2006

/s/ Steven G. Larson