alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §612c–2. Technical support to exporters and importers of United States agricultural products; scope of support provided by Department of Agriculture

The Department of Agriculture shall provide technical support to exporters and importers of United States agricultural products when so requested. Such support shall include, but not be limited to, a review of the feasibility of the export proposal, adequacy of sources of supply, compliance with trade regulations of the United States and the importing country and such other information or guidance as may be needed to expand and expedite United States agricultural exports by private trading interests.

(Pub. L. 91–524, title VIII, §811, as added Pub. L. 93–86, §1(27)(B), Aug. 10, 1973, 87 Stat. 238.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act which comprises this chapter.
<PAGE>   1
                              EAC INDUSTRIES, INC.
                                   EXHIBIT 11
                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                                   (Unaudited)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                             For The Three Months             For The Nine Months
                                               Ended October 31,               Ended October 31,
                                         ---------------------------     ---------------------------
                                             1998            1997            1998            1997
                                         -----------     -----------     -----------     -----------
<S>                                      <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>
NET (LOSS):
  Continuing operations                  $  (151,414)    $  (164,665)    $  (218,239)    $  (322,030)
  Discontinued operations                     80,993          39,606         110,321         148,930
                                         -----------     -----------     -----------     -----------
NET (LOSS)                               $   (70,421)    $  (125,059)    $  (107,918)    $  (173,100)
                                         ===========     ===========     ===========     ===========



(LOSS) PER SHARE:
  Continuing operations                  $      (.05)    $      (.07)    $      (.08)    $      (.14)
  Discontinued operations                        .03             .02             .04             .07
                                         -----------     -----------     -----------     -----------
                                         $      (.02)    $      (.05)    $      (.04)    $      (.07)
                                         ===========     ===========     ===========     ===========


SHARES:
  Weighted average shares outstanding      2,885,521       2,311,687       2,858,655       2,311,687
  Other - options, warrants etc                 --              --              --              --
                                         -----------     -----------     -----------     -----------
                                           2,885,521       2,311,687       2,858,655       2,311,687
                                         ===========     ===========     ===========     ===========
</TABLE>


                                 - Exhibit 11 -


                                                                        Page 12.
§ 856.7 Action after final decision. ( a ) *Action by the Executive Director.* The Executive Director or his/her designee will inform the applicant or counsel, if any, of the final decision on the application. If any requested relief was denied, the Executive Director will advise the applicant of reconsideration procedures and, for cases processed under the Military Whistleblowers Protection Act, review by the SecDef. The Executive Director will send decisions requiring corrective action to the Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force, for necessary action.
( b ) *Settlement of claims.* The Air Force is authorized, under 10 U.S.C. 1552, to pay claims for amounts due to applicants as a result of correction of military records. ( 1 ) The Executive Director will furnish the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) with AFBCMR decisions potentially affecting monetary entitlement or benefits. DFAS will treat such decisions as claims for payment by or on behalf of the applicant.
( 2 ) DFAS settles claims on the basis of the corrected military record. Computation of the amount due, if any, is a function of DFAS. Applicants may be required to furnish additional information to DFAS to establish their status as proper parties to the claim and to aid in deciding amounts due.
( 3 ) Earnings received from civilian employment during any period for which active duty pay and allowances are payable will be deducted from the settlement. Amounts found due will be offset by the amount of any existing indebtedness to the government in compliance with the Debt Collection Act of 1982 or successor statutes.
( c ) *Public access to decisions.* After deletion of personal information, AFBCMR decisions will be made available for review and copying at an electronic public reading room.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14 UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, Thomas B. Mangas, certify that:



| | 1) | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Starwood Hotels &
Resorts Worldwide, Inc.; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: April 29, 2016



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Thomas B. Mangas   
|Thomas B. Mangas       
|Chief Executive Officer
### §4202. Statement of the Congress

#### (a) With regard to individuals of Japanese ancestry

The Congress recognizes that, as described by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, a grave injustice was done to both citizens and permanent resident aliens of Japanese ancestry by the evacuation, relocation, and internment of civilians during World War II. As the Commission documents, these actions were carried out without adequate security reasons and without any acts of espionage or sabotage documented by the Commission, and were motivated largely by racial prejudice, wartime hysteria, and a failure of political leadership. The excluded individuals of Japanese ancestry suffered enormous damages, both material and intangible, and there were incalculable losses in education and job training, all of which resulted in significant human suffering for which appropriate compensation has not been made. For these fundamental violations of the basic civil liberties and constitutional rights of these individuals of Japanese ancestry, the Congress apologizes on behalf of the Nation.

#### (b) With respect to the Aleuts

The Congress recognizes that, as described by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, the Aleut civilian residents of the Pribilof Islands and the Aleutian Islands west of Unimak Island were relocated during World War II to temporary camps in isolated regions of southeast Alaska where they remained, under United States control and in the care of the United States, until long after any potential danger to their home villages had passed. The United States failed to provide reasonable care for the Aleuts, and this resulted in widespread illness, disease, and death among the residents of the camps; and the United States further failed to protect Aleut personal and community property while such property was in its possession or under its control. The United States has not compensated the Aleuts adequately for the conversion or destruction of personal property, and the conversion or destruction of community property caused by the United States military occupation of Aleut villages during World War II. There is no remedy for injustices suffered by the Aleuts during World War II except an Act of Congress providing appropriate compensation for those losses which are attributable to the conduct of United States forces and other officials and employees of the United States.

(Pub. L. 100–383, §2, Aug. 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 903.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 1989a of the former Appendix to this title prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
§ 755.6 Action where offenders are members of one command. ( a ) *Action by commanding officer.* The commanding officer shall ensure the alleged offenders are shown the investigative report and are advised they have 20 days within which to submit a statement or additional information on the incident. If the member declines to submit information, he shall so state in writing within the 20 day period. The commanding officer shall review the investigation and determine whether the claim is properly within the provisions of Article 139, UCMJ, and these regulations, and whether the facts indicate responsibility for the damage on members of the command. If the commanding officer finds the claim payable under these regulations, he shall fix the amount to be assessed against the offenders.
( b ) *Review.* If the commanding officer has authority to convene a general court-martial, no further review of the investigation is required as to the redress of injuries to property. If the commanding officer does not have general court-martial convening authority, the investigation and the commanding officer's action thereon shall be forwarded to the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction (OEGCM) over the command for review and action on the claim. That officer's action on the claim shall be communicated to the commanding officer who will take action consistent with the determination.
( c ) *Charge against pay.* Where the amount does not exceed $5,000.00, the amount ordered by the commanding officer shall, as provided in the Navy Comptroller Manual, be charged against the pay of the offenders and the amounts so collected will be paid to the claimant. Where the amount exceeds $5,000.00, the claim, the investigation, and the commanding officer's recommendation shall be forwarded for review prior to checkage to Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps (Code JAR) or the Judge Advocate General, as appropriate. The amount charged in any single month against the pay of offenders shall not exceed one-half of basic pay, as defined in paragraph 126h(2), Manual for Courts-Martial. The action of the commanding officer in ordering the assessment shall be conclusive on any disbursing officer for payment to the claimant of the damages assessed, approved, charged, and collected.
### §2157. Release of trade secrets

#### (a) Release of confidential information prohibited

It shall be unlawful for any member of an Institutional Animal Committee to release any confidential information of the research facility including any information that concerns or relates to—

(1) the trade secrets, processes, operations, style of work, or apparatus; or

(2) the identity, confidential statistical data, amount or source of any income, profits, losses, or expenditures,

of the research facility.

#### (b) Wrongful use of confidential information prohibited

It shall be unlawful for any member of such Committee—

(1) to use or attempt to use to his advantages; or

(2) to reveal to any other person,

any information which is entitled to protection as confidential information under subsection (a).

#### (c) Penalties

A violation of subsection (a) or (b) is punishable by—

(1) removal from such Committee; and

(2)(A) a fine of not more than $1,000 and imprisonment of not more than one year; or

(B) if such violation is willful, a fine of not more than $10,000 and imprisonment of not more than three years.

#### (d) Recovery of damages by injured person; costs; attorney's fee

Any person, including any research facility, injured in its business or property by reason of a violation of this section may recover all actual and consequential damages sustained by such person and the cost of the suit including a reasonable attorney's fee.

#### (e) Other rights and remedies

Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any other rights of a person injured in its business or property by reason of a violation of this section. Subsection (d) shall not be construed to limit the exercise of any such rights arising out of or relating to a violation of subsections (a) and (b).

(Pub. L. 89–544, §27, as added Pub. L. 99–198, title XVII, §1754, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1649.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective one year after Dec. 23, 1985, see section 1759 of Pub. L. 99–198, set out as an Effective Date of 1985 Amendment note under section 2131 of this title.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16
- 2441

FABIAN CANSECO VASQUEZ , Petitioner ,

v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : July 20, 2017 Decided: July 31, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Jonathan S. Greene , GREENE LAW FIRM, LLC , Columbia, Maryland, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Julia J. Tyler , Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are no t binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Fabian Ca nseco Vasquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board ) d ismissing his appeal from the IJ’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). For the rea sons set forth below, we deny the petition for review.
T he agency’s decision regarding whether an applicant has complied with the one

year time limit for filing an asylum application or established changed or extraordinary circumstances justifying waiver of that time limit is not reviewable by any court. 8
U.S .C. § 1158(a)(3) (2012); see also Mulyani v. Holder, 771 F.3d 190, 196

- 97 (4th Cir. 2014); Gomis v. Holder , 571 F.3d 353, 358

- 59 (4th Cir. 2009). Although 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012) provides that any provision under the Immigration and Nationality Ac t which limit s or eliminates judicial review shall not be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law, we have held that the question of whether an asylum application is untimely or whether the changed or extraordinary circu mstances exception applies “is a discretionary determination based on
factual circumstances.” Gomis , 571 F.3d at 358

. We have reviewed the record and Vasquez’s brief and conclude that he fails to raise a colorable constitutional claim or question of law. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s finding that Vasquez’s asylum application was untimely. We further conclude that the Board’s denial of Vasquez’s applications for withholding of remov al and protection under the CAT is3 supported by substa ntial evidence and the record does not compel a different result. Id.

at 359; Gandziami

- Mickhou v. Gonzales , 445 F.3d 351, 354 (4th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
Press release

 

**For Immediate Release: September 20, 2006**

 

**Statement regarding Accident in Kazakhstan**

 

Arcelor Mittal regrets to announce that a methane gas explosion occurred this morning in its Lenina mine in Kazakhstan.  At this time there are 18 reported fatalities.  A further 25 people are still missing.  The cause of the explosion is not yet known.  

 

Emergency planning procedures are in place at each of the mines and have been immediately implemented.  Rescue work is currently underway.  Mr Malay Mukherjee, Member of the Group Management Board, and Mr Narendra Chaudhary, CEO of Asia and the CIS, have left immediately for Kazakhstan. Mr Lakshmi Mittal, President of Arcelor Mittal, will also visit the mine this week.  

 

A full investigation will be launched into the causes of the explosion.  

 

Mr Mittal, said:

 

*“We deeply regret this tragic accident and extend our full sympathy and condolences to the families of everyone that has been affected.* *Our current priority is to search for the missing miners, and to lend support to the families of the bereaved. I personally will be traveling to Kazakhstan this week to express my sympathies to the families of those affected.”* 

 

*“The safety of our workers is a priority and the company will be working very closely with the authorities to discover the cause of this tragic event.”*

 

**About Arcelor Mittal**

Arcelor Mittal is the world’s leading steel company, by both revenue and production. The company operates 61 plants across 27 countries, employing some 320,000 employees.
EXHIBIT
      10.1

    


    


    


    


    


    April
      6,
      2006

    


    Securities
      and Exchange Commission

    100
      F
      Street, N.E.

    Washington,
      D.C. 20549-7561

    


    Dear
      Sirs/Madams:

    


    We
      have
      read Item 4.01 of The Alpine Group, Inc.’s Form 8-K dated April 1, 2006, and we
      agree with the statements made therein.

    


    Yours
      truly,

    


    /s/
      Deloitte & Touche LLP
§ 651.10 Actions requiring environmental analysis. The general types of proposed actions requiring environmental impact analysis under NEPA, unless categorically excluded or otherwise included in existing NEPA documentation, include: ( a ) Policies, regulations, and procedures (for example, Army and installation regulations).
( b ) New management and operational concepts and programs, including logistics; RDT&E; procurement; personnel assignment; real property and facility management (such as master plans); and environmental programs such as Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan (INRMP), Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP), and Integrated Pest Management Plan. NEPA requirements may be incorporated into other Army plans in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.4.
( c ) Projects involving facilities construction.
( d ) Operations and activities including individual and unit training, flight operations, overall operation of installations, or facility test and evaluation programs.
( e ) Actions that require licenses for operations or special material use, including a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) license, an Army radiation authorization, or Federal Aviation Administration air space request (new, renewal, or amendment), in accordance with AR 95-50.
( f ) Materiel development, operation and support, disposal, and/or modification as required by DOD 5000.2-R.
( g ) Transfer of significant equipment or property to the ARNG or Army Reserve.
( h ) Research and development including areas such as genetic engineering, laser testing, and electromagnetic pulse generation.
( i ) Leases, easements, permits, licenses, or other entitlement for use, to include donation, exchange, barter, or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Examples include grazing leases, grants of easement for highway right-of-way, and requests by the public to use land for special events such as air shows or carnivals.
( j ) Federal contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of funding such as Government-Owned, Contractor-Operated (GOCO) industrial plants or housing and construction via third-party contracting.
( k ) Request for approval to use or store materials, radiation sources, hazardous and toxic material, or wastes on Army land. If the requester is non-Army, the responsibility to prepare proper environmental documentation may rest with the non-Army requester, who will provide needed information for Army review. The Army must review and adopt all NEPA documentation before approving such requests.
( l ) Projects involving chemical weapons/munitions.
### §2009aa–11. Annual report

Not later than 180 days after the end of each fiscal year, the Authority shall submit to the President and to Congress a report describing the activities carried out under this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 87–128, title III, §382L, as added Pub. L. 106–554, §1(a)(4) [div. B, title V, §503], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–280.)
### §3158. Next generation agriculture technology challenge

#### (a) In general

The Secretary shall establish a next generation agriculture technology challenge competition to provide an incentive for the development of innovative mobile technology that removes barriers to entry in the marketplace for beginning farmers and ranchers (as defined in subsection (a) of section 2279 of this title).

#### (b) Amount

The Secretary may award not more than $1,000,000 in the aggregate to 1 or more winners of the competition under subsection (a).

(Pub. L. 95–113, title XIV, §1419C, as added Pub. L. 115–334, title VII, §7110, Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4784.)
#### 1232.770-2 Definition.

*Continuing Resolution (CR)* means an appropriation, in the form of a joint resolution, that provides budget authority for Federal agencies, specific activities, or both to continue operation until the regular appropriations are enacted. Typically, a continuing resolution is used when legislative action on appropriations is not completed by the beginning of a fiscal year.