alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 195.13 Effect on other issuances. All issuances heretofore issued by any officer of the Department of Defense or its components which impose requirements designed to prohibit any discrimination against individuals on the ground of race, color, or national origin under any program to which this part applies, and which authorize the suspension or termination of or refusal to grant or to continue Federal financial assistance to any applicant for or recipient of such assistance under such program for failure to comply with such requirements, are hereby superseded to the extent that such discrimination is prohibited by this part, except that nothing in this part shall be deemed to relieve any person of any obligation assumed or imposed under any such superseded regulation, order, instruction, or like direction prior to the effective date of this part. Nothing in this part, however, shall be deemed to supersede any of the following (including future amendments thereof): ( a ) Executive Orders 10925 and 11114 and issuances thereunder,
( b ) The “Standards for a Merit System of Personnel Administration,” issued jointly by the Secretaries of Defense, of Health, Education, and Welfare, and of Labor, 28 FR 734, or
( c ) Executive Order 11063 and issuances thereunder, or any other issuances, insofar as such Order or issuances prohibit discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin in any program or situation to which this part is inapplicable, or prohibit discrimination on any other ground.
#### § 1801.11 Preliminary information.

Members of the public shall address all communications to the contact specified at § 1801.3 and clearly delineate the communication as a request under the Privacy Act and this regulation. Requests and administrative appeals on requests, referrals, and coordinations received from members of the public who owe outstanding fees for information services at this or other federal agencies will not be accepted and action on existing requests and appeals will be terminated in such circumstances.
### **CHAPTER 79—SERVICES TO EMPLOYEES**

Sec.
7901.
Health service programs.
7902.
Safety programs.
7903.
Protective clothing and equipment.
7904.
Employee assistance programs relating to drug abuse and alcohol abuse.
7905.
Programs to encourage commuting by means other than single-occupancy motor vehicles.
7906.
Services of post-combat case coordinators.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2011**—Pub. L. 112–81, div. A, title XI, §1106(b), Dec. 31, 2011, 125 Stat. 1614, added item 7906.

**1993**—Pub. L. 103–172, §2(b), Dec. 2, 1993, 107 Stat. 1996, added item 7905.

**1986**—Pub. L. 99–570, title VI, §6004(b), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–159, added item 7904.

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

#### State or Local Government Programs Encouraging Employee Use of Public Transportation; Federal Agency Participation

Pub. L. 102–241, §44, Dec. 19, 1991, 105 Stat. 2226, provided that: "The Department of Transportation may include military personnel of the Coast Guard in any program in which the Department participates under section 629 of the Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Appropriations Act, 1991, Public Law 101–509 [set out below], notwithstanding section 629(c)(2) of that Act."

[For transfer of authorities, functions, personnel, and assets of the Coast Guard, including the authorities and functions of the Secretary of Transportation relating thereto, to the Department of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see sections 468(b), 551(d), 552(d), and 557 of Title 6, Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6.]

Pub. L. 101–509, title VI, §629, Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1478, authorized Federal agencies and employees to participate in State or local government programs encouraging employees to use public transportation, directed General Accounting Office, not later than June 30, 1993, to conduct a study and submit a report on the implementation of such programs, and provided that this section was repealed effective Dec. 31, 1993.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6127

JOSE LOPEZ-DIAZ,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

H. JOYNER, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. 

J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (1:18-cv-03471-JMC)

Submitted: September 10, 2020 Decided: September 15, 2020

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jose Lopez-Diaz, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jose Lopez-Diaz appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

petition for lack of jurisdiction. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The magistrate judge recommended that the case be 

dismissed and advised Lopez-Diaz that failure to file timely, specific objections to this 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the 

recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is 

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the 

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v. Duffy, 858 

F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see 

also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Although Lopez-Diaz received proper 

notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, he has waived 

appellate review because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge. See Martin, 858 F.3d at 245 (holding 

that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to 

the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to 

alert the district court of the true ground for the objection” (internal quotation marks 

omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. However, we modify 

the dismissal order, Lopez-Diaz v. Joyner, No. 1:18-cv-03471-JMC (D.S.C. Jan. 13, 2020), 

to reflect dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and affirm the dismissal as 

modified, 28 U.S.C. § 2106.
3

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 AS MODIFIED
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:*                         December 23, 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 December 14, 2020, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & First-Class Package Service Contract 182 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2021-46, CP2021-48.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2020-28448 Filed 12-22-20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
### §21111. Actions by the Attorney General for declaratory and injunctive relief

The Attorney General may bring a civil action against any State or jurisdiction in an appropriate United States District Court for such declaratory and injunctive relief (including a temporary restraining order, a permanent or temporary injunction, or other order) as may be necessary to carry out the uniform and nondiscriminatory election technology and administration requirements under sections 21081, 21082, and 21083 of this title.

(Pub. L. 107–252, title IV, §401, Oct. 29, 2002, 116 Stat. 1715.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 15511 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
#### § 1901.11 Preliminary information.

Members of the public shall address all communications to the contact specified at § 1901.03 and clearly delineate the communication as a request under the Privacy Act and this regulation. Requests and administrative appeals on requests, referrals, and coordinations received from members of the public who owe outstanding fees for information services at this or other federal agencies will not be accepted and action on existing requests and appeals will be terminated in such circumstances.
Hon. R. L. Crazier 

county Attorney 

Johnson County 

cleburne, Texas 

De*r Sir: Opinion No. O-2148 

Rer The qualification of a trustee 

of a common school district as a 

sproperty taxpayer." 

We are in receipt of your letter of recent date in which you request the opinion of this department touohing the question stated‘-by you 

88 follows, 

"Is a person nho~owns personal property within 

the o-on school distriot, which personal property 

has been assessed for taxes, but upon v&i&the said 

taxes are delinquem'c, a property taxpaying and quali-, 

fied to hold the office of trustee in the common 

school district?" 

Artiole 2745, Revised Statutes of Texas, 

follows* 

(I . . . providing no person shall be 

trustee unless he is a property taxpayer 

to which he is eleoted . , .s 

provides, in part, as 

qualified as 

in the district 

This departmenl held:in an opinion by Assistant Attorney General Joe J. Alsup, under date of April 14, 1936, that a person who hss 

been assessed taxes on personal property is s. property taxpayer and a 

qualified trustee of a ccsmnon school district in Texas, in such particular, although he has never paid the taxes on such personal property. 

It will bs noted that this statute does not require that the 

trustee shall be a taxpayer as to real property in the absence of which 

this requirmnent is satisfied upon the basis of personal property taxes. 

RUSEN VS. CWJTFAU COUNTY, 265 Pac. 676; 82 MONT. 115. 

The general rule also appears to be, absent any contrary indication in the particular statute, that the term "taxpayer" means a 

person chargeable with a tax; one who owns propertywithin the county 

subject to taxation. HILLSMAR VS. FAISON, 57 S.W. 920 (Tex. Civ. App.); 

RADGH VS. LITILS, 282 Pac. 459, 140 Okla. 206; CASTILLO vs. STATE HIGHWAY KMMISSION of MO. 279 S. W. 6733 312 No. 244. We do not beliew 
Hon. R. L. Crocier, Page 2 (O-2148) 

it is a necessary qualification, under Article 2745,~ supm, that the 

trustee.shall have mtually paid the taxes assessed against him. 

You are, therefore, respectfully advised that it is our 

opinion, as heretofore held by this department, that a person is a 

"property taxpayer" within the purview of Article 2745, supra, if 

he owns personal property within the district whioh has been assessed fortaxes, notwithstanding that suoh person is delinquent in the 

payment thereof. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GEEEBAL OFTEXAS 

By 

/s/ Eollie C. Steakley 

Zollie C. Steakley 

Assistmt 

Opinion Committee 

By BWB 

Ch*irman
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Unmanned systems integratedroadmap**
 
2009-2034 | 2011-2036| 2013-2038
 
SuDoc Number:D 1.2:UN 5/
Item Number:0306 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001056361
 
May 14, 2018
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6407

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EMJADIA PORTER, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-94-37, CA-97-690-7) Submitted: June 15, 2000 Decided: June 22, 2000Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Emjadia Porter, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Breeding Peters, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Emjadia Porter appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) motion to reopen the time in which he may file an appeal from the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion and denying his application for a certificate of appealability. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. See United States v. Porter , No. CR-94-37,CA-97-690-7 (W.D. Va. Mar. 13, 2000). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 23**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

Securities and ExchangeCommission 

Washington, D. C. 

We hereby consent to theinclusion in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of our report dated January 6, 2006, on our audit of the consolidated financial statements of Citizens Financial Corp. as of December 31, 2005 and for the year then ended appearing in Part II,Item 8 of the 2005 Form 10-K of Citizens Financial Corp. 

/s/ YOUNT, HYDE & BARBOUR P.C. 

Winchester, Virginia 

March 23, 2006 

**Exhibit 23 (cont.)**

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

Washington, D. C. 

We hereby consent to the inclusion in this Annual Reporton Form 10-K of our report dated January 9, 2004, on our audit of the consolidated financial statements of Citizens Financial Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2003, appearing in Part II, Item 8 of the 2005 Form 10-K of Citizens Financial Corp.

/s/ ARNETT & FOSTER, P.L.L.C. 

Charleston, West Virginia****

March 22, 2006
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 22

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                           JURISDICTION
SUBSIDIARY                                                                               OF INCORPORATION
----------------------------------------------                                           ----------------
<S>                                                                                     <C>
GENICOM International Holdings Corporation                                                   Delaware

GENICOM International Sales Corporation                                                      Delaware

Enterprising Service Solutions Corporation                                                   Delaware

Delmarva Technologies Corporation                                                            Delaware

Rastek Corporation                                                                           Delaware

Rastek Japan Ltd.                                                                              Japan

GENICOM Relay Products Corporation                                                           Delaware

Printer Systems Corporation                                                                  Virginia

Printer Connection, Inc.                                                                     Virginia

Printer Systems International, Inc.                                                          Virginia

GENICOM Canada, Inc.                                                                          Canada

GENICOM Foreign Sales Corporation                                                       U.S. Virgin Islands

GENICOM Euro Holdings B.V.                                                                The Netherlands

GENICOM de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.                                                               Mexico

GENICOM International Limited                                                                 England

GENICOM (No. 1) Limited                                                                       England

GENICOM Ltd.                                                                                  England

GENICOM S.A.R.L.                                                                              France

GENICOM S.A.                                                                                  France

GENICOM GmbH                                                                                  Germany

GENICOM S.p.A.                                                                                 Italy

GENICOM (Australia) PTY LTD.                                                                 Australia

GENICOM Pty Limited                                                                          Australia
</TABLE>


                                      E-37
#### § 21.310 Who ensures DoD Component compliance with the DoDGARs?

The Head of each DoD Component that makes or administers awards, or his or her designee, is responsible for ensuring compliance with the DoDGARs within that DoD Component.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6479

FRANK LIPOVSKY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

B. J. ROBERTS, Sheriff; LIND W. DOCTOR; LARRY

WINDER, Medical Practitioner; STEPHENIE

LAWLESS, Nurse; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District

Judge. (CA-95-423-2)

Submitted: May 29, 1997 Decided: June 5, 1997

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank Lipovsky, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. The district court assessed a

filing fee in accordance with Evans v. Croom, 650 F.2d 521 (4th

Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1153 (1982), and dismissed the

case without prejudice when Appellant failed to comply with the fee

order. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the district

court's order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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 amended Annual Report of AccuPoll Holding Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Dennis Vadura, 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 result of operations of the Company.


May 20, 2005                                     /s/ Dennis Vadura
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                       Dennis Vadura
                                                       Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version 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.
Exhibit 23.1 

**CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP, INDEPENDENT**

**REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-44204, 333-34648, 33-86930, 33-90392, 33-96620,33-97490, and 333-132447) and on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-45118, 333-40508, 333-44212, 33-41027, 333-13387, 333-13359, 333-13357, 33-80988, 333-56244, 333-48110, 333-35276, 333-34622, 333-94999, 333-92885, 333-87039, 333-55983, 333-55991, 333-34671,333-81414, 333-102747, 33-80992, 33-94790, 333-133830,333-115123 and 333-128427) of our report dated February 28, 2007 relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of PMC-Sierra, Inc. (which report expresses anunqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company’s adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 123(R) “Share-Based Payment”), and management’s report on the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of PMC-Sierra, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006. 

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Independent Registered PublicAccountants 

Vancouver, Canada 

March 1, 2007