alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

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 on Form 10-Q of Claires Stores, Inc.
(the Company) for the period ended November 2, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bonnie
Schaefer, Acting Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ E. Bonnie Schaefer                              
|                  |  |                                                     
|December 16, 2002 |  | E. Bonnie Schaefer
Acting Co-Chief Executive
Officer
### §6507. State organic certification program

#### (a) In general

The governing State official may prepare and submit a plan for the establishment of a State organic certification program to the Secretary for approval. A State organic certification program must meet the requirements of this chapter to be approved by the Secretary.

#### (b) Additional requirements

#### (1) Authority

A State organic certification program established under subsection (a) may contain more restrictive requirements governing the organic certification of farms and handling operations and the production and handling of agricultural products that are to be sold or labeled as organically produced under this chapter than are contained in the program established by the Secretary.

#### (2) Content

Any additional requirements established under paragraph (1) shall—

(A) further the purposes of this chapter;

(B) not be inconsistent with this chapter;

(C) not be discriminatory towards agricultural commodities organically produced in other States in accordance with this chapter; and

(D) not become effective until approved by the Secretary.

#### (c) Review and other determinations

#### (1) Subsequent review

The Secretary shall review State organic certification programs not less than once during each 5-year period following the date of the approval of such programs.

#### (2) Changes in program

The governing State official, prior to implementing any substantive change to programs approved under this subsection, shall submit such change to the Secretary for approval.

#### (3) Time for determination

The Secretary shall make a determination concerning any plan, proposed change to a program, or a review of a program not later than 6 months after receipt of such plan, such proposed change, or the initiation of such review.

(Pub. L. 101–624, title XXI, §2108, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3939.)
#### (A) The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Willie Lee London, Appellant. (B) The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Peter O. Williams, Appellant.

Motion by respondent to dismiss appeal granted, and appeal dismissed. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000013777
<NAME> BRADLEY REAL ESTATE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             260
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,714
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,036
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,656
<PP&E>                                       1,038,006
<DEPRECIATION>                                  85,852
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 985,810
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,085
<BONDS>                                        451,685
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          318,194
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        86,802
<OTHER-SE>                                      97,044
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   985,810
<SALES>                                         40,778
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                41,831
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,164
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,945
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,235
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,712
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,712
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.38


</TABLE>
# June 2021 FOIA Log
|        |
|--------|
|   | **RESCINDED**
Continue

****

  |
### **CHAPTER 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS**
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-30660 Conference Calendar

AARON J. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CHRIS SMITH; CURLEY MATHEWS; GRADY P. GAGNARD; LEON COCO; TATE, Sergeant; JOSEPH FURGUSON; ROBERT LEMOINE, Cadet; CORY WALDING; EDDIE MILLS; GARY DUBROC; KAYLO, Warden, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CV-1155

-------------------- February 20, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Aaron J. Johnson appeals from the dismissal as frivolous of his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against various corrections officers and prison officials. Johnson’s brief , which is simply a typed version of his district court motion for summary judgment, contains no record citations and no identification of any error in the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his claims. Although this court applies less stringent standards to partiesNo. 01-30660 -2- proceeding pro se than to parties represented by counsel and liberally construes the briefs of pro se litigants, pro se parties must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with the requirements of F ED . R. C IV . P. 28. See Grant v. Cuellar , 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). Johnson has not adequately briefed any argument regarding the magistrate judge’s dismissal of his constitutional claims as frivolous. Johnson’s failure to identify any error in the district court's legal analysis or its application to the facts of this case "is the same as if he had not appealed that judgment." Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). This court "will not raise and discuss legal issues that [Johnson] has failed to assert." Id. Johnson’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous.
See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Because this appeal lacks merit, it is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. The magistrate judge’s dismissal of Johnson’s claims as frivolous counts as a ”strike” for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a second “strike.” See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Johnson is hereby warned that should he accumulate three “strikes,” he will be barred from proceeding in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; TWO-STRIKES WARNING ISSUED.
### §8319. Surveillance of zoonotic diseases

The Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Secretary of Agriculture shall coordinate the surveillance of zoonotic diseases.

(Pub. L. 107–188, title III, §313, June 12, 2002, 116 Stat. 674.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, and not as part of the Animal Health Protection Act which comprises this chapter.
#### In the Matter of Arthur Pearce, Respondent, v. Central School District No. 1, Town of Irondequoit, et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board which determined that the claimant had a continuing causally related partial disability and made an award from February 4, 1959 to April 13, 1960 for reduced earnings. It is not disputed that on November 13, 1958, the claimant, as a result of striking his left ankle, sustained a work-connected accident and injury resulting in an ulcer on his left ankle. The question is whether the ulcer had completely healed prior to the performance of an operation. If healing was not complete, the board was justified in finding continued causal relationship. If, on the other hand, the healing was complete, any disability thereafter would be due to a pre-existing circulatory disease. The general medical practitioner, who attended the claimant, testified that the ulcer had never healed although he admitted he did not see the claimant for a period of about three months, during which time he was under the care of a specialist. The specialist testified that the ulcer had completely healed but he afterwards said: “I don’t know as you could say it was permanently healed. It obviously wasn’t.” This doctor also stated that a new ulcer developed early in March in exactly the same place as the old one. Additional medical testimony produced by the claimant substantiated the averment that, just prior to the operation in February, the ulcer was not completely healed. The hospital records make continual references to an ulcer, without distinguishing as to whether it was an old or new condition. The medical issue developed a question of fact for the consideration of the board and there was substantial evidence to sustain its finding. Decision of the board unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



BNSF Railway Company



In connection with the Quarterly Report of BNSF Railway (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned, Matthew K. Rose, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Thomas N. Hund, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to his
knowledge on the date hereof:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: April 28, 2005



|                                                |  |                                                     
|----------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Matthew K. Rose                             |  | /s/ Thomas N. Hund                                  
|Matthew K. Rose                                 |  | Thomas N. Hund                                      
|Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to BNSF Railway Company and will be retained by BNSF Railway Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
- pa-muhlenbergcollege-1-complaint
- '03242071 Recipient Notification Letter' of '24-00861-F Philadelphia'
### §6982. Conditions for implementation of alterations in the level of additives allowed in animal diets

#### (a) Conditions

The Food and Drug Administration shall not implement or enforce the final rule described in subsection (b) to alter the level of selenium allowed to be used as a supplement in animal diets unless the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration makes a determination that—

(1) selenium additives are not essential, at levels authorized in the absence of such final rule, to maintain animal nutrition and protect animal health;

(2) selenium at such levels is not safe to the animals consuming the additive;

(3) selenium at such levels is not safe to individuals consuming edible portions of animals that receive the additive;

(4) selenium at such levels does not achieve its intended effect of promoting normal growth and reproduction of livestock and poultry; and

(5) the manufacture and use of selenium at such levels cannot reasonably be controlled by adherence to current good manufacturing practice requirements.

#### (b) Final rule described

The final rule referred to in subsection (a) is the final rule issued by the Food and Drug Administration and published in the Federal Register on September 13, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 47962), in which the Administration stayed 1987 amendments to the selenium food additive regulations, and any modification of such rule issued after October 13, 1994.

(Pub. L. 103–354, title II, §262, Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3227.)
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 729 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 729

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire approximately 44 
 acres of land in Martinez, California, for inclusion in the John Muir 
            National Historic Site, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 27, 2017

 Ms. Harris (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire approximately 44 
 acres of land in Martinez, California, for inclusion in the John Muir 
            National Historic Site, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``John Muir National Historic Site 
Expansion Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Historic site.--The term ``Historic Site'' means the 
        John Muir National Historic Site in Martinez, California, 
        established by Public Law 88-547 (78 Stat. 753).
            (2) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled ``John 
        Muir National Historic Site Proposed Boundary Expansion'', 
        numbered 426/127150, and dated November 2014.
            (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of the Interior.

SEC. 3. JOHN MUIR NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE LAND ACQUISITION.

    (a) Acquisition.--The Secretary may acquire by donation the 
approximately 44 acres of land and any interests in the land that is 
identified on the map.
    (b) Boundary.--On the acquisition of the land authorized under 
subsection (a), the Secretary shall adjust the boundaries of the 
Historic Site to include the acquired land.
    (c) Administration.--The land and any interests in land acquired 
under subsection (a) shall be administered as part of the Historic 
Site.
                                 <all>
```
#### 1407.307 Appeals.

Department appeal procedures required by OMB Circular A-76 are codified in 43 CFR part 4, subpart M.
SERVED: DECEMBER 17, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SEA HAWK AIR, INC. 

DOCKET NO. F AA-2014-0865 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2011NM730060) has been assigned 

to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other 

communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing 

Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List. 

a:sv/ 

Chief Administrative Law . ···d.ge 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST -BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

John L. Wright, Respondent's Counsel 

The Law Office of John L. Wright, P.C. 

11705 Airport Way, Sriite 307 

Broomfield, CO 80021 

TEL: 303-747-4000 

FAX: 303-747-4001 

ONE COPY 

Craig Wm. Black, Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AAL-7 

222 West 7th A venue, Box 14 

Anchorage, AL 99513-7587 

TEL: 907-271-3570 

FAX: 907-271-2800 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0865 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2
1Larry G. Massanari has been appointed to serve as Acting Commissioner of

Social Security, and is substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 43(c)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-1285

___________

Frank Caruso, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Larry G. Massanari,1 Commissioner, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Social Security Administration, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: September 7, 2001

 Filed: September 21, 2001

___________

Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE,

Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
2The Honorable Beverly Stites Jones, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-2-

Frank Caruso appeals the district court’s2 order affirming the denial of

supplemental security income. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Dunahoo v.

Apfel, 241 F.3d 1033, 1037 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review), we affirm. 

In his November 1996 application, Caruso alleged disability since October 1996

from chronic hepatitis C, right-knee degenerative arthritis, and bilateral carpal tunnel

syndrome. After a hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found that Caruso was

capable of performing his past relevant work, and thus he was not disabled.

Caruso primarily contends that the ALJ improperly discredited his and his

witnesses’ testimony. We disagree. The ALJ summarized the testimony of Caruso and

his witnesses, and cited the factors in Polaski v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 1320, 1322 (8th Cir.

1984); then, noting multiple inconsistencies in the record, the ALJ found Caruso’s

subjective complaints were not credible to the extent alleged. See Dunahoo, 241 F.3d

at 1038 (if ALJ discredits claimant and gives good reasons for doing so, this court will

defer to his judgment even if every factor is not discussed in depth); cf. Young v. Apfel,

221 F.3d 1065, 1068 (8th Cir. 2000) (where same evidence would support discounting

testimony of claimant’s husband, ALJ’s failure to articulate reasons for discrediting him

is inconsequential). 

Caruso’s other suggestions of error are also meritless. See Ply v. Massanari, 251

F.3d 777, 779 (8th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (ALJ is responsible for determining residual

functional capacity based on all relevant evidence, including medical records,

observations of treating physicians and others, and claimant’s description of his

limitations); Hajek v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 89, 92 (8th Cir. 1994) (conclusory statement that

ALJ failed to consider combined effects of impairments was unfounded where ALJ
-3-

noted each impairment and concluded that impairments, alone or in combination, were

not of listing-level severity). 

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. 

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### 1804.170 Contract effective date.

“Contract effective date” means the date agreed upon by the parties for beginning the period of performance under the contract. In no case shall the effective date precede the date on which the contracting officer or designated higher approval authority signs the document. Costs incurred before the contract effective date are unallowable unless they qualify as precontract costs (see FAR 31.205-32) and the clause prescribed at 1831.205-70 is used.

[83 FR 28386, June 19, 2018]
United States District Court

Northern District of Illinois

12cv1139

Honorable Ronald A. Guzman

Mag. Cox

Chicagoland Aviation, LLC 

v

Richard R. Todd

Chicago Premier Boat Rental, LLC 

INJUNCTION B O N D

in the amount of $5,000.00

Chicagoland Aviation, LLC

as principal

By Robert A. McKenzie, one of the attorneys

for Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

as Surety

13

Case: 1:12-cv-01139 Document #: 13 Filed: 02/22/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:73
# Journal officiel C 330A/7 oc

| | ISSN 1977-0936 |
| --- | --- |
| Journal officiel
  de l'Union européenne | C 330A |
| | |
| Édition de langue française | Communications et informations | 58e année7 octobre 2015 |

ISSN 1977-0936

Journal officiel

de l'Union européenne

C 330A

Édition de langue française

Communications et informations

58e année7 octobre 2015

---

| Numéro d'information | Sommaire | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Avis |
| | PROCÉDURES ADMINISTRATIVES |
| | Office européen de sélection du personnel (EPSO) |
| 2015/C 330A/01 | Avis d’annulation | 1 |

Numéro d'information

Sommaire

page

V   Avis

PROCÉDURES ADMINISTRATIVES

Office européen de sélection du personnel (EPSO)

2015/C 330A/01

Avis d’annulation

1

---

| FR | |
| --- | --- |

FR

---

V Avis

PROCÉDURES ADMINISTRATIVES

Office européen de sélection du personnel (EPSO)

| 7.10.2015 | FR | Journal officiel de l'Union européenne | CA 330/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.10.2015

FR

Journal officiel de l'Union européenne

CA 330/1

---

AVIS D’ANNULATION

(2015/C 330 A/01)

La publication au Journal officiel de l’Union européenne
   (1) de l’avis de concours général EPSO/AD/321/15 — Administrateurs dans le domaine de l’audit (AD 5/AD 7) est annulée.

---

(1)  JO C 316 A du 24.9.2015, p. 1.

---