alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §5342. Nutrition training report

The Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretaries of Agriculture, Education, and Defense, and the Director of the National Science Foundation, shall submit, within one year after October 22, 1990, a report describing the appropriate Federal role in assuring that students enrolled in United States medical schools and physicians practicing in the United States have access to adequate training in the field of nutrition and its relationship to human health.

(Pub. L. 101–445, title III, §302, Oct. 22, 1990, 104 Stat. 1044.)
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 September 30, 2007, 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

November 14, 2007
Editorial Note on Part 842
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 842 appear at 81 FR 83688, Nov. 22, 2016.

§ 842.90 Delegations of authority. ( a ) *Settlement authority.* ( 1 ) The Secretary of the Air Force has authority to: ( i ) Settle a claim for $100,000 or less.
( ii ) Settle a claim for more than $100,000, paying the first $100,000 and reporting the excess to the General Accounting Office for payment.
( iii ) Deny a claim in any amount.
( 2 ) The Judge Advocate General has delegated authority to settle a claim for $100,000 or less, and deny a claim in any amount.
( 3 ) The following individuals have delegated authority to settle a claim for $25,000 or less, and deny a claim in any amount: ( i ) The Deputy Judge Advocate General.
( ii ) The Director of Civil Law.
( iii ) The Chief, Deputy Chief, and Branch Chiefs, Claims and Tort Litigation Staff.
( 4 ) The SJAs of the Air Force component commander of the U.S. geographic combatant commands for claims arising within their respective combatant command areas of responsibility have delegated authority to settle claims payable or to deny claims filed for $25,000 or less.
( 5 ) SJAs of GCMs in PACAF and USAFE have delegated authority to settle claims payable, and deny claims filed, for $15,000 or less.
( b ) *Redelegation of authority.* A settlement authority may redelegate up to $25,000 of settlement authority to a subordinate judge advocate or civilian attorney. This redelegation must be in writing and can be for all claims or limited to a single claim. The Chief, AFLOA/JACC may redelegate up to $25,000, in writing, to paralegals assigned to AFLOA/JACC and, upon request, may authorize installation Staff Judge Advocates to redelegate their settlement authority to paralegals under their supervision.
( c ) *Appellate authority.* Upon appeal a settlement authority has the same authority to settle a claim as that specified above. However, no appellate authority below the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force may deny an appeal of a claim it previously denied.
( d ) *Authority to reduce, withdraw, and restore settlement authority.* Any superior settlement authority may reduce, withdraw, or restore delegated settlement authority.
( e ) *Settlement negotiations.* A settlement authority may settle a claim filed in any amount for a sum within the delegated settlement authority regardless of the amount claimed. Unsettled claims in excess of the delegated settlement authority are sent to the individual with higher settlement authority. Unsuccessful negotiations at one level do not bind higher authority.
( f ) *Special exceptions.* No authority below the level of AFLOA/JACC may settle claims for: ( 1 ) On the job personal injury or death of an employee of a government contractor or subcontractor.
( 2 ) Assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, or malicious prosecution committed by an investigative or law enforcement officer.
[55 FR 2809, Jan. 29, 1990. Redesignated and amended at 81 FR 83696, Nov. 22, 2016]
### §114. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Aug. 15, 1919, ch. 50, 41 Stat. 280; 1940 Reorg. Plan No. V, eff. June 14, 1940, 5 F.R. 2423, 54 Stat. 1238, authorized lease for other than governmental purposes of Charleston immigration station and dock connected therewith.

Section was also classified to section 342k of former Title 5, Executive Departments and Government Officers and Employees, and subsequently eliminated from the Code on enactment of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, by Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 378.
Appeal No. 75-15.

#### Albert Vitali *et ux. v.*Pawtucket Redevelopment Agency.

*John F. McBurney,*for plaintiffs. *John F; Sherlock, Jr.,*for defendant.

Motion of plaintiffs to dismiss appeal of defendant granted.
#### § 552.56 Licensing requirements.

To transact personal commercial business on military installations in the United States, its territories, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, individuals must present, on demand, to the installation commander, or his designee, documentary evidence that the company and its agents meet the licensing requirements of the State in which the installation is located. They must also meet any other applicable regulatory requirements imposed by civil authorities (Federal, State, county, or municipality). For ease of administration, the installation commander will issue a temporary permit to agents who meet these requirements.
No. 8249.

#### Shaw *v.*French, Treas., et al.

(Decided November 24, 1903.)

Error to Circuit Court of Hamilton county.

*Mr. Charles W. Baker,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Ampt, Ireton, Collins & Schoenle,*county solicitors, for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Spear, Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.
### §608–1. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act July 2, 1940, ch. 521, §9, 54 Stat. 729, which related to adjustments between payee and third persons, was omitted as executed.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Marilyn Ridenour, B.S.N., M.B.A., M.P.H., C.P.H., C.I.C., CAPT, USPHS, Scientific Review Officer, CDC, National                               ( print page 1976)                            Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1095 Willowdale Road, Mailstop 1811, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505, Telephone: (304) 285-5879.                    

                        The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

Kalwant Smagh,

Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2021-00283 Filed 1-8-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
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.                  

###### Judicial Conference of the United States

# AGENCY:

Judicial Conference of the United States.

# ACTION:

Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, notice of open meeting.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules will hold a meeting on April 30, 2021 in Washington, DC. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation. An agenda and supporting materials will be posted at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at:                         *http://www.uscourts.gov/​rules-policies/​records-and-archives-rules-committees/​agenda-books.*

# DATES:

April 30, 2021, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. (Eastern).

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Rebecca A. Womeldorf, Secretary, Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle NE, Suite 7-300, Washington, DC 20544, Phone (202) 502-1820,                         *RulesCommittee_Secretary@ao.uscourts.gov.*

Authority:28 U.S.C. 2073.

Dated: January 11, 2021.

Rebecca A. Womeldorf,

Rules Committee Secretary, Rules Committee Staff.

[FR Doc. 2021-00677 Filed 1-13-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2210-55-P
11.103 Market acceptance. ( a ) 41 U.S.C. 3307(e) provides that, in accordance with agency procedures, the head of an agency may, under appropriate circumstances, require offerors to demonstrate that the items offered— ( 1 ) Have either— ( i ) Achieved commercial market acceptance; or
( ii ) Been satisfactorily supplied to an agency under current or recent contracts for the same or similar requirements; and
( 2 ) Otherwise meet the item description, specifications, or other criteria prescribed in the public notice and solicitation.
( b ) Appropriate circumstances may, for example, include situations where the agency's minimum need is for an item that has a demonstrated reliability, performance or product support record in a specified environment. Use of market acceptance is inappropriate when new or evolving items may meet the agency's needs.
( c ) In developing criteria for demonstrating that an item has achieved commercial market acceptance, the contracting officer shall ensure the criteria in the solicitation— ( 1 ) Reflect the minimum need of the agency and are reasonably related to the demonstration of an item's acceptability to meet the agency's minimum need;
( 2 ) Relate to an item's performance and intended use, not an offeror's capability;
( 3 ) Are supported by market research;
( 4 ) Include consideration of items supplied satisfactorily under recent or current Government contracts, for the same or similar items; and
( 5 ) Consider the entire relevant commercial market, including small business concerns.
( d ) Commercial market acceptance shall not be used as a sole criterion to evaluate whether an item meets the Government's requirements.
( e ) When commercial market acceptance is used, the contracting officer shall document the file to— ( 1 ) Describe the circumstances justifying the use of commercial market acceptance criteria; and
( 2 ) Support the specific criteria being used.
[60 FR 48238, Sept. 18, 1995, as amended at 79 FR 24199, Apr. 29, 2014]
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-30797 

Conference Calendar

__________________

KENNETH JOHNSON,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ORLEANS INDIGENT DEFENDERS PROGRAM;

ANNE TURISSINI, Attorney, Orleans

Indigent Defenders Program; WAYNE

FONTENELLE,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-1141-S

- - - - - - - - - -

(October 19, 1995)

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kenneth Johnson requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis

(IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his lawsuit filed under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. He argues that the defendants accorded him

ineffective representation, in contravention of his

constitutional rights, which allegedly resulted in his

unconstitutional imprisonment.
No. 95-30797

-2-

 To proceed IFP on appeal, a movant must show that he is a

pauper and that he will present a nonfrivolous appellate issue. 

Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Johnson's

poverty is not in question.

In order to recover damages for an allegedly

unconstitutional imprisonment, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that

his conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal,

expunged by executive order, declared invalid by an authorized

state tribunal, or called into question by a federal court's

issuance of a writ of habeas under § 2254. Heck v. Humphrey, 114

S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994). Otherwise, such a claim for damages is

not cognizable under § 1983 and must be dismissed. Id. 

Johnson has not even alleged, let alone made the requisite

showing to satisfy the Heck standard. His claim is thus not

cognizable under § 1983. The district court's dismissal of

Johnson's complaint was proper. Heck, 114 S. Ct. at 2372.

This appeal presents no issue of arguable merit and is thus

frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir.

R. 42.2.

We caution Johnson that any additional frivolous appeals

filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of

sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Johnson is further cautioned to

review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise

arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously

decided by this court.

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING GIVEN.
##### 



Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 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 Emerson Radio Corp. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, Geoffrey P. Jurick, Chief Executive Officer, and Guy
A. Paglinco, Chief Financial Officer, of the Company each hereby certifies
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 as amended; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates
presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company for the
periods presented. Dated: November 15, 2004 By: /s/ Geoffrey P. JurickGeoffrey P. Jurick
Chief Executive OfficerBy: /s/ Guy A. PaglincoVice President and
Chief Financial Officer
 The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document. 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 Emerson Radio Corp. and
will be retained by Emerson Radio Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Stovall, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered April 14,1977, convicting defendant on his plea of guilty of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law, § 125.20) and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of not less than 4 years and not more than 12 years, is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent that the provision for a minimum period of four years in the sentence is stricken, and the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment for an indeterminate term of which the maximum shall be 12 years with no minimum set by the court; and the judgment is otherwise affirmed. Defendant killed his estranged wife. There cannot be any excuse for the crime. On the other hand, it was an emotional situation arising out of the estrangement; the defendant was 29 years old at the time of the crime; he is now 32 years old; he has no other criminal record, although his disputes with his wife did lead to four Family Court orders of protection; he is not engaged in a life of crime. He has been incarcerated since the date of the sentence. This appears to us to be the kind of case in which the determination of eligibility for parole should be made by the Parole Board without the court tying the Parole Board’s hands in advance. Concur—Silverman, Markewich and Sandler, JJ.

Kupferman, J. P., and Birns, J.,

dissent in part in a memorandum, as follows: Following his guilty plea to the crime of manslaughter in the first degree, defendant was sentenced to a prison term of 4 to 12 years. He beat his wife to death. This incident was not the first assault. There were other episodes which required the wife to obtain orders of protection. The probation report highlights the domestic difficulties of the defendant, who comes from a good home and background, has skills as an electrician and no prior criminal record. Nevertheless, we note the observations of Judge Zimmerman at sentence to the effect that the defendant is immature and emotional and that if a minimum sentence were not set the defendant probably would be back on the street within 12 months, and that such a result would not be desirable. Recognizing the interplay of the various factors present in this case, there is nothing to indicate that Judge Zimmerman in any way abused his discretion in imposing this sentence. As a matter of interest, other Judges on the sentencing panel with whom he conferred would have imposed a more severe maximum and minimum. Judge Zimmerman attempted to be most careful in imposing sentence in this most difficult case. We are of the opinion that the sentence was appropriate. We would affirm.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

VINCENT M. MANI,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES,

Respondent

______________________

2023-1520

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-0752-19-0577-I-3.

______________________

Before PROST, REYNA, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Vincent M. Mani appealed his removal from the Department of Health and Human Services to the Merit Systems Protection Board, alleging various affirmative 

defenses of discrimination based on his disability, race, national origin, and religion. The Board affirmed the removal, and Dr. Mani petitioned this court for review and 

states that he wishes to continue to pursue his discrimination claims, see ECF No. 3 at 1–3; ECF No. 4-1 at 2.

Case: 23-1520 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 06/13/2023
2 MANI v. HHS

Responding to the court’s order asking whether this 

case should be transferred, Dr. Mani states that the United 

States District Court for the District of Maryland “may be 

the correct place for [his] case,” ECF No. 10 at 1. The Department does not oppose transfer to that court. ECF No. 

11. Because the district court is the appropriate forum for 

judicial review of Board decisions involving agency actions 

appealable to the Board and alleged to be based on certain 

types of discrimination, 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); Perry v. 

Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 582 U.S. 420 (2017); Diggs v. Dep’t of 

Hous. & Urb. Dev., 670 F.3d 1353, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011), 

we agree that transfer is appropriate to the District of Maryland. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Given our disposition, Dr. 

Mani’s consolidation request, ECF No. 4-1 at 1; ECF No. 10 

at 1, is best addressed to the district court. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, this case and all transmittals are transferred to the United States District Court 

for the District of Maryland.

 June 13, 2023

 Date

FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

 Jarrett B. Perlow

 Acting Clerk of Court

Case: 23-1520 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 06/13/2023
### §413. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 413 was transferred to section 475 of this title and subsequently repealed.
August 18, 2015



### JUDGMENT



## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE INTEREST OF T .E.A., A CHILD

NO. 14

- 15

- 00349

- CV

_______ _________________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on March 6, 2015. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant, In the Interest of T.E.A., a Child.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
§ 99.7 Procedures for requesting an indemnification agreement. When requesting an indemnification agreement, the State or locality must notify each Federal agency as appropriate, at the address listed in the appendix to this part, of its eligibility of an indemnification agreement. It must also: ( a ) Certify that on December 4, 1985, the State or locality had in effect a law which prohibited or had the effect of prohibiting the disclosure of criminal history record information to the DoD, OPM, or CIA; and
( b ) Append to the request for an indemnification agreement a copy of such law.