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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3014 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3014

 To amend title 46, United States Code, to ensure the safety of barges 
carrying oil or hazardous material in bulk on lakes, bays, or sounds of 
 the United States, by establishing equipment and manning requirements 
                           for those barges.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 5, 1996

Mr. Reed (for himself, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, and Mr. Gejdenson) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 46, United States Code, to ensure the safety of barges 
carrying oil or hazardous material in bulk on lakes, bays, or sounds of 
 the United States, by establishing equipment and manning requirements 
                           for those barges.

    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 ``Barge Safety Act of 1996''.

SEC. 2. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN BARGES CARRYING OIL OR 
              HAZARDOUS MATERIAL IN BULK.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 37 of title 46, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 3719. Special requirements for tank barges
    ``(a) A tank barge carrying oil or hazardous material on lakes, 
bays, or sounds in the United States shall be--
            ``(1) equipped with an operable anchor system, including--
                    ``(A) an anchor that is suitable for a seagoing 
                barge;
                    ``(B) an anchor chain; and
                    ``(C) a windlass; and
            ``(2) manned.
    ``(b) Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to a tank barge that is 
equipped with a double hull.
    ``(c) The Secretary shall issue regulations implementing this 
section, including regulations prescribing--
            ``(1) dimensions for anchors required under this section; 
        and
            ``(2) training requirements for individuals manning tank 
        barges under this section.
    ``(d) In this section, the term `tank barge' means a barge that is 
a tank vessel.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 33 of title 46, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
end the following new item:

``3719. Special requirements for tank barges.''.
    (c) Effective Date of Amendments.--The amendments made by this 
section shall take effect 1 year after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Issuance of Regulations.--The Secretary shall issue regulations 
required by the amendments made by this section by not later than 1 
year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32

Certification

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, each of the undersigned hereby certifies in his or her capacity as an officer of Southern Michigan Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") that the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of such period and the results of operations of the Company for such period.

|Date:  March 26, 2010 | /s/ John H. Castle                                                                         
|--------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      | John H. Castle
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer                           
|                      |                                                                                            
|                      |                                                                                            
|                      |                                                                                            
|                      |                                                                                            
|Date:  March 26, 2010 | /s/ Danice L. Chartrand                                                                    
|                      | Danice L. Chartrand
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer, Secretary and Treasurer

|A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Southern Michigan Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by Southern Michigan Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
§ 136a.11 Services available. ( a ) *Type of services that may be available.* Services for the Indian community served by the local facilities and program may include hospital and medical care, dental care, public health nursing and preventive care including immunizations, and health examination of special groups such as school children.
( b ) *Where services are available.* Available services will be provided at hospitals and clinics of the Service, and at contract facilities (including tribal facilities under contract with the Service).
( c ) *Determination of what services are available.* The Service does not provide the same health services in each area served. The services provided to any particular Indian community will depend upon the facilities and services available from sources other than the Service and the financial and personnel resources made available to the Service.
( d ) *Priorities when funds, facilities, or personnel are insufficient to provide the indicated volume of services.* Priorities for care and treatment, as among individuals who are within the scope of the program, will be determined on the basis of relative medical need and access to other arrangements for obtaining the necessary care.
[46 FR 40692, Aug. 11, 1981, as amended at 52 FR 35048, Sept. 16, 1987]
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# Agency Holding the Meeting:

 Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# Time And Date:

 11 a.m., Friday September 4, 2009

# Place:

 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room

# Status:

 Closed

# Matters To Be Considered:

 Surveillance matters

# Contact Person for More Information:

 Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield, 

Assistant Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. E9-21164 Filed 8-28-09; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
Exhibit
32.1



CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with this Annual Report of Muscle Maker, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December
31, 2019, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael J. Roper,
Chief Executive Officer and Secretary of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. | Such
    Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2019, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2019, fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Muscle Maker, Inc.



|By: | /s/
    Michael J. Roper                  | 
|--- | ----------------------------------------- | 
|    | Michael
    J. Roper                      | 
|    | Chief
    Executive Officer and Secretary | 
|    | (Principal
    Executive Officer)         | 
|    | June
    5, 2020                          |
# Suriname

58 items

        -    Report  		2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Suriname	  March 30, 2021 
        -    		Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs: Suriname Summary	   
        -    Report  		2020 Investment Climate Statements: Suriname	  September 8, 2020 
        -    Report  		2020 Trafficking in Persons Report: Suriname	  June 25, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: Suriname	  June 10, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Suriname	  March 11, 2020 
        -    Report  		Suriname	  July 11, 2019 
        -    Report  		Suriname	  June 21, 2019 
        -    Report  		Suriname	  June 20, 2019 
        -    		Suriname	  April 24, 2019 

previous page123456next page

Back to Top
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2711 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2711

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 5, 1996

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To provide for the substitution of timber for the canceled Elkhorn 
                           Ridge Timber Sale.

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

SECTION 1. SUBSTITUTION OF TIMBER FOR CANCELED TIMBER SALE.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act of July 
31, 1947 (30 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and the requirements of section 
5402.0-6 of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, the Secretary of the 
Interior, acting through the Bureau of Land Management, is authorized 
to substitute, without competition, a contract for timber identified 
for harvest located on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land 
Management in the State of California of comparable value for the 
following terminated timber contract: Elkhorn Ridge Timber Sale, 
Contract No. CA-050-TS-88-01.
    (b) Disclaimer.--Nothing in this section shall be construed as 
changing any law or policy of the Federal Government beyond the timber 
sale substitution specified in this section.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 4, 1996.

            Attest:

                                                ROBIN H. CARLE,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### § 800.238 Personal identifier.

The term *personal identifier* means name, physical address, email address, social security number, phone number, or other information that identifies a specific individual.
#### Rosa Lee RANKIN, Appellant, v. George F. RANKIN, Appellee.

No. 73-1294.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 23, 1974.

Gillman & Horn, P. A., Miami, for appellant.

Adams, George, Wood, Schulte & Thompson, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellant, ex-wife, appeals an order (1) modifying final judgment of divorce wherein the alimony provision thereof was eliminated and (2) denying appellant attorney’s fees.

The parties in this action were divorced on April 20, 1970 and • pursuant to the judgment entered thereon, appellant, ex-wife, was awarded $1,500 yearly alimony. Having retired from his job, petitioner-ap-pellee, ex-husband, in June 1973 filed the instant petition praying for modification of the 1970 final judgment of divorce with respect to the alimony provision thereof. A hearing was held thereon at the conclusion of which the chancellor entered his modification order herein appealed.

Appellant, ex-wife, alleges the court erred in granting the petition for modifica*118tion and denying her petition for attorney s fees. We cannot agree.

The chancellor expressly reserved jurisdiction in the April 1970 final judgment of divorce to modify or terminate the alimony to the appellant, ex-wife. Having found no abuse of the chancellor’s discretion in the elimination thereof or the denial of attorney’s fees to her, we hereby affirm the order herein appealed. See 10A Fla.Jur. Dissolution of Marriage § 318 (1973).

Affirmed.
# Federal Aviation Administration

RGL Home **Advisory Circular****Advisory Circular Information****Advisory Circular Information**** ****AC Number:**AC 25.795-2A**Date:**10/24/2008** ****Change Description:**** ****Subject:**Flight Deck Penetration Resistance** ****Related Regulation(s):**Unknown Part**Section Number(s):**Unknown Section** ****Cancels:**AC 25.795-2**Initiating Office:**ANM-100** ****Advisory Circular in PDF Format:**** ****Comments****Comments**
Comments:
FAA.gov Home |			Privacy Policy |			Web Policies & Notices |			Contact Us |			Help

**Readers & Viewers:**PDF Reader | MS Word Viewer | MS PowerPoint Viewer | MS Excel Viewer | Zip
#### Henry GRAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 74-589.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 25, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### § 585.801 Procedures.

For license application procedures and procedures relating to amendments, modifications, or revocations of licenses; administrative decisions; rulemaking; and requests for documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts (5 U.S.C. 552 and 552a), see part 501, subpart E, of this chapter.
#### § 566.304 Effective date.

The *effective date* refers to the effective date of a prohibition or strict condition imposed pursuant to § 566.201 on the opening or maintaining of a correspondent account or a payable-through account in the United States by a U.S. financial institution for a particular foreign financial institution and is the earlier of the date the U.S. financial institution receives actual or constructive notice of such prohibition or condition.
#### § 137.367 May the Secretary issue a stop work order under a construction project agreement?

No, the Secretary has no role in the day-to-day management of a construction project.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3068

To accept the request of the Prairie Island Indian Community to revoke

their charter of incorporation issued under the Indian Reorganization Act.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 12, 1996

Mr. GUTKNECHT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To accept the request of the Prairie Island Indian Community to revoke their charter of incorporation issued under

the Indian Reorganization Act.

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

3 SECTION 1. REVOCATION OF CHARTER OF INCORPORA4 TION OF THE PRAIRIE ISLAND INDIAN COM5 MUNITY UNDER THE INDIAN REORGANIZA6 TION ACT.

7 The request of the Prairie Island Indian Community

8 to surrender the charter of incorporation issued to that

9 Community on July 23, 1937, pursuant to section 17 of

10 the Act of June 18, 1934, commonly known as the ‘‘Indian
2

•HR 3068 IH

1 Reorganization Act’’ (25 U.S.C. 477) is hereby accepted

2 and that charter of incorporation is hereby revoked.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7535
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAVIER CERVERA, a/k/a Jason, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District Judge. (CR-88-33-N, CA-95-610-N) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 24, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Susan Graham James, Montgomery, Alabama, for Appellant. Robert Williams Wiechering, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Cervera , Nos. CR-88-33-N; CA-95-610-N (E.D. Va. July 28, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2005204EN.01000401.xml

| 20.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 204/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3854 — IPIC/OMV/JV)

(2005/C 204/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 1 August 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3854. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3854. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
§ 1001.1551 Exclusion of individuals with ownership or control interest in sanctioned entities. ( a ) *Circumstance for exclusion.* The OIG may exclude any individual who— ( 1 ) Has a direct or indirect ownership or control interest in a sanctioned entity, and who knows or should know (as defined in section 1128A(i)(6) of the Act) of the action constituting the basis for the conviction or exclusion set forth in paragraph (b) of this section; or
( 2 ) Is an officer or managing employee (as defined in section 1126(b) of the Act) of such an entity.
( b ) For purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the term “sanctioned entity” means an entity that— ( 1 ) Has been convicted of any offense described in §§ 1001.101 through 1001.401 of this part; or
( 2 ) Has been terminated or excluded from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and all other Federal health care programs.
( c ) *Length of exclusion.* ( 1 ) If the entity has been excluded, the length of the individual's exclusion will be for the same period as that of the sanctioned entity.
( 2 ) If the entity was not excluded, the length of the individual's exclusion will be determined by considering the factors that would have been considered if the entity had been excluded.
( 3 ) An individual excluded under this section may apply for reinstatement in accordance with the procedures set forth in § 1001.3001.
[63 FR 46689, Sept. 2, 1998. Redesignated and amended at 82 FR 4115, Jan. 12, 2017]
#### § 578.302 Critical infrastructure sector.

The term *critical infrastructure sector* means any of the designated critical infrastructure sectors identified in Presidential Policy Directive 21 of February 12, 2013.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Pat Thomas LEONETTI, Appellee.

No. 79-495.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Feb. 18, 1981.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Edward M. Chew, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dayto-na Beach, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

COWART, Judge.

Appellant, the accused in a criminal case, moved for a continuance specifically waiving his rights under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191. Thereafter the State twice amended the information causing trial delay. More than 180 days1 after appellant was taken into custody and more than 90 days2 after the original trial date appellant moved for a discharge. The trial court granted the discharge citing *State ex rel. Meredith v. Glickstein,*377 So.2d 27 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); *Johnson v. State,*366 So.2d 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), *cert. denied,*376 So.2d 76 (Fla.1979); and *State v. Reese,*359 So.2d 33 (Fla. 4th DCA), *cert. denied,*365 So.2d 715 (Fla.1978), and was correct in doing so at that time. However, those cases have now been disapproved and effectively overruled. *Butterworth v. Fluellen,*389 So.2d 968 (Fla.1980); *State v. Johnson,*386 So.2d 1316 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). *See also State v. Pernell,*388 So.2d 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). The order granting the appellee’s discharge is reversed, his motion for discharge is denied,3 and this cause is remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur.

1

. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(a)(1).

2

. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.191(d)(3).

3

. It should be noted that this opinion, when final, will itself be a denial of appellee’s motion for discharge and, under *Butterworth,*will commence the running of a new 90 day period within which appellee must be brought to trial under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191(d)(3).