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

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2385 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to expand eligibility for CombatRelated Special Compensation paid by the uniformed services in order 

to permit certain additional retired members who have a service-connected disability to receive both disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs for that disability and Combat-Related Special 

Compensation by reason of that disability. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 8, 2006 

Mr. REID introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to expand eligibility 

for Combat-Related Special Compensation paid by the 

uniformed services in order to permit certain additional 

retired members who have a service-connected disability 

to receive both disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs for that disability and CombatRelated Special Compensation by reason of that disability. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 2385 IS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Combat-Related Spe3 cial Compensation Act of 2006’’. 

4 SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF COMBAT-RELATED SPECIAL COM5 PENSATION ELIGIBILITY FOR CHAPTER 61 

6 MILITARY RETIREES. 

7 (a) ELIGIBILITY.—Subsection (c) of section 1413a of 

8 title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘enti9 tled to retired pay who—’’ and all that follows and insert10 ing ‘‘who— 

11 ‘‘(1) is entitled to retired pay (other than by 

12 reason of section 12731b of this title); and 

13 ‘‘(2) has a combat-related disability.’’. 

14 (b) COMPUTATION.—Paragraph (3) of subsection (b) 

15 of such section is amended— 

16 (1) by designating the text of that paragraph as 

17 subparagraph (A), realigning that text so as to be 

18 indented 4 ems from the left margin, and inserting 

19 before ‘‘In the case of’’ the following heading: ‘‘IN

20 GENERAL.—’’; and 

21 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub22 paragraph: 

23 ‘‘(B) SPECIAL RULE FOR RETIREES WITH

24 FEWER THAN 20 YEARS OF SERVICE.—In the 

25 case of an eligible combat-related disabled uni26 formed services retiree who is retired under 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•S 2385 IS 

1 chapter 61 of this title with fewer than 20 

2 years of creditable service, the amount of the 

3 payment under paragraph (1) for any month 

4 shall be reduced by the amount (if any) by 

5 which the amount of the member’s retired pay 

6 under chapter 61 of this title exceeds the 

amount equal to 21 7 ⁄2 percent of the member’s 

8 years of creditable service multiplied by the 

9 member’s retired pay base under section 

10 1406(b)(1) or 1407 of this title, whichever is 

11 applicable to the member.’’. 

12 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

13 this section shall take effect on January 1, 2006, and shall 

14 apply to payments for months beginning on or after that 

15 date. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
# L_2022035EN.01002401.xml

| 17.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 35/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 35/24

---

Corrigendum to Decision (EU) 2021/1758 of the European Central Bank of 21 September 2021 amending Decision ECB/2007/7 concerning the terms and conditions of TARGET2-ECB (ECB/2021/43)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 354 of 6 October 2021
  )

On page 40, Annex II, point 10:

for:

‘paragraph 8(4)(b)’,

read:

‘paragraph 7(1)(b)’.

---
#### In the Matter of Liberty Coaches, Inc., Appellant, v Boston Old Colony Insurance Company, Respondent.

a proceeding to vacate an arbitration award, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated July 20, 1979 which denied the petition. Judgment affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. The petitioner, a self-insurer, paid first-party benefits and thereafter filed an application for inter-company arbitration to obtain reimbursement. The arbitration panel determined that the petitioner had failed to sustain its burden of proof. This proceeding was brought to set aside the determination on the ground that it was irrational and without basis in fact. We conclude that the determination is not irrational or baseless on the record before the arbitrators. The record discloses that the petitioner’s evidence was solely documentary, i.e., the police report of the accident, an MV 104 report, and the settlement by the respondent of the first-party benefits claim of the petitioner’s driver arising from a bodily injury he suffered. When requested by the arbitration panel to produce its file, the petitioner failed to comply. The arbitration panel was free on this record to reach the determination that the petitioner had not sustained its burden of proof of establishing its claim. *Matter of Levine v Zurich Amer. Ins. Co.*(71 AD2d 1003) is distinguishable. There, the verdict of the jury in an action tried prior to the arbitration had determined liability for basic economic loss. No such prior finding had been made in this case. Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Mangano, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

SECTION 906 CEO AND CFO CERTIFICATION

 

Certification of ChiefExecutive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to

Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the “Report”) ofFederal Services Acquisition Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we, the undersigned,Joel R. Jacks, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of theRegistrant, and, Peter M. Schulte, President and Chief Financial Officer of theRegistrant, hereby certify, to the best of our knowledge, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Registrant.

 
|                         | Federal  Services Acquisition Corporation |
|------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                         |                                      |   |
|                         | By:                                       | /s/  Joel R. Jacks |   |
|                         |                                      | Chairman  of the Board and |
|                         |                                      | Chief  Executive Officer |
|                         |                                      |   |
|                         | By:                                       | /s/  Peter M. Schulte |   |
|                         |                                      | President  and |
|                         |                                      | Chief  Financial Officer |
| Date:  December 6, 2005 |                                      |   |

 

----
Exhibit 32.2
 
 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 of Keyuan Petrochemicals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report’), I, Aichun Li, Chief Financial 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.
 
 
 Date:  September 27, 2010
 
 /s/ Aichun Li
 Aichun Li
 Chief Financial Officer
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. 4:90cr4010-WS

LEONIDEZ MENDEZ-HINOJOSA,

Defendant.

 

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 251)

docketed September 11, 2008. The magistrate judge recommends that the defendant's

petition for writ of audita querela (doc. 250) be denied. The defendant has filed

objections (doc. 252) to the report and recommendation.

Upon review of the record in light of the defendant's objections, this court has

determined that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 251) is hereby

ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this order.

Case 4:90-cr-04010-WS-GRJ Document 253 Filed 10/02/08 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 4:90cr4010-WS

2. The defendant's petition for writ of audita querela (doc. 250) is DENIED with

prejudice.

3. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of October , 2008.

s/ William Stafford 

WILLIAM STAFFORD

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:90-cr-04010-WS-GRJ Document 253 Filed 10/02/08 Page 2 of 2
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MEDTRONIC INC.,

Appellant

v.

NUVASIVE, INC.,

Appellee

______________________ 

2014-1722

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 95/001,247.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

JUSTIN J. OLIVER, Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, 

Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented 

by STEPHEN EDWARD BELISLE; NINA SHREVE, New York, 

NY.

MICHAEL T. ROSATO, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & 

Rosati, PC, Seattle, WA, argued for appellee. Also represented by PAUL DAVID TRIPODI, II, Los Angeles, CA; CRAIG 

E. COUNTRYMAN, Fish & Richardson, P.C., San Diego, CA; 

FRANK SCHERKENBACH, Boston, MA; STEPHEN REYNOLD 

SCHAEFER, MICHAEL J. KANE, Minneapolis, MN. 
 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (DYK, O’MALLEY, and TARANTO, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

April 14, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1435

NANCY M. TAYLOR; JAMES TAYLOR , Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,

v. LOWE’S HOME CENTERS, LLC , Defendant

- Appellee

.

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

. Donald C. Coggins, Jr. , District Judge. ( 7:16

- cv
- 03316

- DCC )

Submitted : November 30, 2018 Decided: February 6, 2019

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Paul C. Rathke, THE JOEL BIEBER FIRM, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellants. Doc Morgan, Jr., Greenville, South Carolina, Helen F. Hiser , MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK & COURIE, LLC , Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Appellants Nancy and James Taylor (“the Taylors”) appeal the district court’s
order granting summary judgment in favor of Lowe’s Ho me Centers, LLC (“Lowe’s) , and the resulting judgment dismissing with prejudice the Taylors’ removed civil action. In this suit, the Taylors sought compensation for injuries and loss of consortium resulting from Nancy Taylor’s September 2015 fall in a Low e’s store in Spartanburg, South
Carolina . We have reviewed the Taylors’ arguments on appeal in conjunction with the
record and find no reversible error. * Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. See Taylor v. Lowe’s Home Cent ers, LLC , No. 7:16

- cv
- 03316

- DCC (D.S.C. Mar. 22, 2018 ) . 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

* We conclude that the Taylors have waived appellate review of the first two arguments raised in their brief by failing to fully and properly present these issues to the district court. We further conc lude that this case presents no extraordinary circumstances that would warrant our consideration of these issues for the first time on appeal. See In re Under Seal , 749 F.3d 276, 285 (4th Cir. 2014) (“Our settled rule is simple: absent exceptional circums tances, we do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal.” (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
(March 9, 1967)

#### Copake Lake Development Corp., Respondent, v. Sidney Zasuly et al., Appellants.

Order, entered December 1, 1966, granting an injunction *pendente lite*unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs or disbursements, on condition that a temporary Receiver be appointed of the plaintiff corporation and the two defendant corporations, with the usual powers of such a Receiver, pending determination of the action. Defendant, Sidney Zasuly, will be appointed such Receiver and will be required to furnish an undertaking in an amount to be fixed in the order to be entered hereon. In the event Sidney Zasuly fails to qualify as such Receiver, then Irving Fertel shall be appointed as Receiver upon furnishing an undertaking to be fixed by the court in the order ■to be entered hereon. Should both the aforesaid nominees fail to qualify as Receivers then the court will designate its own Receiver. The record demonstrates the necessity for a provisional remedy to protect the property of the plaintiff corporation and preserve it pending the litigation. In view of the nature of the business being conducted the injunction granted may have a crippling and destructive effect on the continued operation of the business. In our opinion the interests of justice will best be served by the appointment of a temporary Receiver of the property of the interrelated corporate parties of this action. The efficiency of the operation of the plaintiff corporation will not be seriously hampered if defendant, Sidney Zasuly, who has been conducting the business for so many years, is appointed temporary Receiver and henceforth accountable to the court for his activities pending the termination of the action. Provision for a substitute Receiver has been made in the event Zasuly refuses or fails to qualify. A speedy trial of the action should be had, upon joinder of issue and completion of pretrial discovery proceedings, at which all the differences among the parties may be adjudicated. Settle order on notice accordingly, with suggestions as to the amount of the Receiver’s undertaking. Concur—Stevens, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, Rabin and MoGrivem, JJ.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No. 1:94-cr-1009-AW-GRJ

ALBERT MADRID,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISCLOSE PRESENTENCE 

INVESTIGATION REPORT TO CLEMENCY COUNSEL

The court sentenced Albert Madrid in 2001. Through counsel, Madrid now 

moves for an order disclosing his presentence investigation report for purposes of 

seeking clemency. ECF No. 1222. The motion seeks an order allowing clemency

counsel to review the PSR to evaluate Marid’s eligibility for the NACDL Trial 

Penalty Clemency Project. It also seeks permission to submit the PSR along with 

Madrid’s formal clemency petition, if one is submitted. This order grants the 

requested relief in part.

This court has discretion to order the PSR’s release. See United States v. 

Gomez, 323 F.3d 1305, 1307 (11th Cir. 2003). Here, Madrid consents to the release, 

and the release would be to his own attorney. Under these circumstances, I find 

release appropriate. I cannot now conclude, though, that it would be necessary or 

appropriate to submit all or part of the PSR with any forthcoming clemency petition. 

Some part might be relevant for a clemency determination; others might not be. 

Case 1:94-cr-01009-AW-GRJ Document 1225 Filed 07/11/22 Page 1 of 2
2

Therefore, before submitting the PSR, counsel must obtain a separate order. In 

seeking such order, counsel must set out in detail what portions of the PSR will be 

included and for what purpose. 

It is now ORDERED:

1. The motion to disclose the presentence investigation report to clemency 

counsel (ECF No. 1222) is GRANTED to the extent set out in this order.

2. The clerk will provide a copy of the PSR (ECF No. 1224) to Attorney 

James D’Cruz.

3. Mr. D’Cruz may disclose the PSR only to other attorneys who are 

working on Madrid’s clemency efforts and who agree to be bound by this order.

4. Counsel may use the PSR only for purposes of representing Mr. Madrid 

in connection with the Trial Penalty Clemency Project.

5. Counsel may not submit the PSR in connection with a clemency 

petition without first obtaining a separate order authorizing that use. 

6. No person may provide a copy to Mr. Madrid. 

7. Counsel must destroy all copies of the PSR at the conclusion of the 

representation. 

SO ORDERED on July 11, 2022.

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 1:94-cr-01009-AW-GRJ Document 1225 Filed 07/11/22 Page 2 of 2
#### § 29.1024 Green (G).

A color term applied to immature or crude tobacco. Any leaf which has a green color affecting 20 percent or more of its surface may be described as green. (See Rule 19.)

[42 FR 21092, Apr. 25, 1977. Redesignated at 51 FR 25027, July 10, 1986]
###### Editorial Note on Part 3403

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3403 appear at 76 FR 4807, Jan. 27, 2011.

#### § 3403.11 Availability of information.

Information regarding the peer review process will be made available to the extent permitted under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a), the SBIR Policy Directive, and implementing Departmental and other Federal regulations. Implementing Departmental regulations are found at 7 CFR part 1.
Exhibit 32


                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Income  &  Growth
Fund  26  LLC  (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period  ended
March  31,  2009,  as  filed  with the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission  on  the date hereof (the "Report"), the  undersigned,
Robert  P.  Johnson, President of AEI Fund Management XXI,  Inc.,
the  Managing Member of the Company, and Patrick W. Keene,  Chief
Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc., each certify,
pursuant  to  18 U.S.C. 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/ Robert P Johnson
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing Member
                              May 12, 2009



                          /s/ Patrick W Keene
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing Member
                              May 12, 2009
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2016

- 3984 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2014

- NM

- 119

- AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

.

**Estimated Costs:**
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

c ost (@$8 5 /h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Inspection 12.0 $ 1,020.0 0 $0 $ 1,020.00 

### 89 $ 90,780.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00


### The known number of products in compliance: 

### 0 Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 90,780 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 

### 0

**On**

**- Condition Costs:** 
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour ) Parts Cost Cost per Product



### Replacement 24.0 $ 2,040.00 $78 $ 2,118.00 

### Reporting 1.0 $ 85.00 

### $0 $ 85.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00


### Special considerations for Economic Analysis ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regul atory action”?
YES * NO

* Explana tion: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:**
Is the AD significant?
YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for
either a Yes or No answ er. YES NO Explanation:
**Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:**
This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?
YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
§ 42.131 Selection of samples. ( a ) Prior to commencement of on-line sampling and inspection, the total amount of production for a given day or shift is predicted and is then subdivided into conveniently designated portions of production approximately equal in size. Portions may be designated by sequential numbers (e.g., containers 1 through 500 are portion 1, containers 501 through 1000 are portion 2, etc.) or by time intervals (e.g., the first half hour of production is portion 1, the second half hour of production is portion 2, etc.) during which the containers are identified by individual production codes for each time interval.
( b ) Determine the number of sample units in a subgroup as follows: Type of Inspection and Number of Sample Units Normal—25 Tightened—50 Reduced—13
( c ) Subgroups are drawn randomly from portions of production throughout the production process and are inspected for defects. The drawing of sampling units may be done in either of two ways: ( 1 ) The number of sample units (13, 25 or 50) comprising a subgroup may be drawn at the same time from a randomly chosen point in the production of each portion, or
( 2 ) sample units may be drawn individually, but in a random manner, throughout the production of each portion. At least 6 subgroups must be obtained during each basic inspection period regardless of the system used to designate portions of production.
( d ) A shift to on-line sampling plans from stationary lot sampling plans (or vice versa) during a basic inspection period is not permitted.