alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 598.202 Prohibited transactions. ( a ) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that come within the United States, or that are or come within the possession or control of any U.S. person, of a specially designated narcotics trafficker are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in. Note 1 to paragraph ( a
):
*See* § 598.314 and the notes to that section for the definition and information about the public listing of specially designated narcotics traffickers and OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List). *See* paragraph (c) of § 598.314 concerning entities that may not be listed on the SDN List but whose property and interests in property are nevertheless blocked pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section.
Note 2 to paragraph ( a
):
Subpart E of part 501 of this chapter describes the procedures to be followed for the release of property and interests in property blocked pursuant to this section, including funds blocked due to mistaken identity or typographical or similar errors, and for administrative reconsideration of one's status as a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this paragraph (a).
( b ) The prohibitions in paragraph (a) of this section include prohibitions on the following transactions: ( 1 ) The making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section; and
( 2 ) The receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) Unless authorized by this part or by a specific license expressly referring to this part, any dealing in securities (or evidence thereof) held within the possession or control of a U.S. person and either registered or inscribed in the name of, or known to be held for the benefit of, or issued by, a specially designated narcotics trafficker is prohibited. This prohibition includes the transfer (including the transfer on the books of any issuer or agent thereof), disposition, transportation, importation, exportation, or withdrawal of, or the endorsement or guaranty of signatures on, any securities on or after the effective date. This prohibition applies irrespective of the fact that at any time (whether prior to, on, or subsequent to the effective date) the registered or inscribed owner of any such securities may have or might appear to have assigned, transferred, or otherwise disposed of the securities.
( d ) The prohibitions in paragraph (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this part, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date.
[86 FR 26667, May 17, 2021, as amended at 89 FR 75968, Sept. 17, 2024]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1.00
<CASH>                                           14871
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            7722
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  6510
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      42597
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            1274
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                              1286
<LOANS>                                         193996
<ALLOWANCE>                                       1888
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  281806
<DEPOSITS>                                      242923
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               2838
<LONG-TERM>                                       4372
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         21014
<OTHER-SE>                                       10659
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  281806
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  15144
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 1096
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   799
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 17039
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                6477
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                6708
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            10331
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      548
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (25)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   7274
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   5503
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        5503
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3680
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.00
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   10.16
<LOANS-NON>                                       1958
<LOANS-PAST>                                       359
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  2034
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      747
<RECOVERIES>                                        53
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 1888
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              1888
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 46232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21524]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Section 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on June 26, 2009, Noramco Inc., 
Division of Ortho-McNeil, Inc., 500 Swedes Landing Road, Wilmington, 
Delaware 19801-4417, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement 
Administration (DEA) for registration as a bulk manufacturer of 
Noroxymorphone (9668), a basic class of controlled substance listed in 
schedule II.
    The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled 
substance as a reference standard for distribution to its customers 
which are analytical laboratories.
    Any other such applicant, and any person who is presently 
registered with DEA to manufacture such a substance, may file comments 
or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 
21 CFR 1301.33(a).
    Any such written comments or objections should be addressed, in 
quintuplicate, to the Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of 
Diversion Control, Federal Register Representative (ODL), 8701 
Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA 22152; and must be filed no later 
than November 9, 2009.

    Dated: August 28, 2009.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-21524 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
# C_2005217EN.01001502.xml

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/15

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 21 July 2005

in Case C-30/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bolzano in Ursel Koschitzki v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) (1)

1

(Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Old-age pension - Calculation of the theoretical amount of benefit - Inclusion of the amount necessary to reach the minimum pension under national legislation)

(2005/C 217/29)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-30/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale di Bolzano (Italy), made by decision of 9 January 2004, received at the Court on 28 January 2004, in the proceedings between Ursel Koschitzki and Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of the First Chamber, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), K. Schiemann, E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 July 2005, in which it ruled:

Article 46(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in its version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3096/95 of 22 December 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine the theoretical amount of the pension on which the calculation of the pro rata pension is based, the competent institution is not required to take into consideration a supplement intended to bring the pension to the minimum level under national legislation where, on account of the fact that the income limits fixed by the national legislation on that supplement are exceeded, an insured person who has worked exclusively in the Member State concerned cannot lay claim to such a supplement.

---

(1)  OJ C 85 of 03.04.2004.

1

---
#### TOWN OF BOONTON, APPELLANT, v. STATE WATER POLICY COMMISSION ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Argued May 17, 1939

Decided September 22, 1939.

For the appellant, *Eugene F. Hillery.*

For the respondent, *King & Vogt.*

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Bodine in the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— -The Chancellor, Parker, Case, Donges, Perskie, Porter, Heteield, Dear, Wells, WolesKeil, Raeeertt, JJ. 11.

*For reversal*— None.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                        OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
                                       OF
                                BELMONT BANCORP.
                      FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2003

The undersigned is the Chief Financial Officer of Belmont Bancorp. (the
"Issuer"). This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification accompanies the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q of the Registrant for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003.

I certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the
information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.

This Certification is executed as of May 9, 2003.

                                               /s/ Jane R. Marsh
                                               -----------------
                                               Jane R. Marsh
                                               Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0 569 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ZACARIAS WAYNE RAGSDALE,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 13 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 7 2023

08/07/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0569
```
**EXHIBIT 99.2

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

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report  of  Cognigen  Networks,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
David G. Lucas, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.ss.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/  David G. Lucas
                                    David G. Lucas
                                    Chief Financial Officer

                                    November 14, 2002
```
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3120

AN ACT

To amend title 18, United States Code, with reand jury tampering. spect to witness retaliation, witness tampering
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3120

AN ACT

To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to

witness retaliation, witness tampering and jury tampering.

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

3 That title 18, United States Code, is amended—

4 (1) in section 1513—
2

•HR 3120 EH

1 (A) by redesignating subsection (c) as sub2 section (d); and

3 (B) by adding at the end the following:

4 ‘‘(c) If the retaliation occurred because of attendance

5 at or testimony in a criminal case, the maximum term of

6 imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense under

7 this section shall be the higher of that otherwise provided

8 by law or the maximum term that could have been im9 posed for any offense charged in such case.’’;

10 (2) in section 1512, by adding at the end the

11 following:

12 ‘‘(i) If the offense under this section occurs in connec13 tion with a trial of a criminal case, the maximum term

14 of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense

15 shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or

16 the maximum term that could have been imposed for any

17 offense charged in such case.’’; and

18 (3) in section 1503(a), by adding at the end the

19 following: ‘‘If the offense under this section occurs

20 in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the

21 act in violation of this section involves the threat of

22 physical force or physical force, the maximum term

23 of imprisonment which may be imposed for the of24 fense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided
3

•HR 3120 EH

1 by law or the maximum term that could have been

2 imposed for any offense charged in such case.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives May 7, 1996.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### Anthony C. HANNAH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 80-1638.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 1, 1981.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Howard K. Blumberg, Asst. Public defender, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Steven R. Jacob, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before DANIEL S. PEARSON, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed. *Bretti v. Wainwright,*225 So.2d 516 (Fla.1969), *as modified,*255 So.2d 266 (Fla.1971); *Jones v. State,*362 So.2d 149 (Fla.3d DCA 1978).
§ 1003.1500 Notice of proposed determination. ( a ) If the OIG proposes a penalty and, when applicable, an assessment, or proposes to exclude a respondent from participation in all Federal health care programs, as applicable, in accordance with this part, the OIG must serve on the respondent, in any manner authorized by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, written notice of the OIG's intent to impose a penalty, an assessment, and an exclusion, as applicable. The notice will include— ( 1 ) Reference to the statutory basis for the penalty, assessment, and exclusion;
( 2 ) A description of the violation for which the penalty, assessment, and exclusion are proposed (except in cases in which the OIG is relying upon statistical sampling in accordance with § 1003.1580, in which case the notice shall describe those claims and requests for payment constituting the sample upon which the OIG is relying and will briefly describe the statistical sampling technique used by the OIG);
( 3 ) The reason why such violation subjects the respondent to a penalty, an assessment, and an exclusion,
( 4 ) The amount of the proposed penalty and assessment, and the length of the period of proposed exclusion (where applicable);
( 5 ) Any factors and circumstances described in this part that were considered when determining the amount of the proposed penalty and assessment and the length of the period of exclusion;
( 6 ) Instructions for responding to the notice, including— ( i ) A specific statement of the respondent's right to a hearing and
( ii ) A statement that failure to request a hearing within 60 days permits the imposition of the proposed penalty, assessment, and exclusion without right of appeal; and
( 7 ) In the case of a notice sent to a respondent who has an agreement under section 1866 of the Act, the notice also indicates that the imposition of an exclusion may result in the termination of the respondent's provider agreement in accordance with section 1866(b)(2)(C) of the Act.
( b ) Any person upon whom the OIG has proposed the imposition of a penalty, an assessment, or an exclusion may appeal such proposed penalty, assessment, or exclusion to the Departmental Appeals Board in accordance with 42 CFR 1005.2. The provisions of 42 CFR part 1005 govern such appeals.
( c ) If the respondent fails, within the time period permitted, to exercise his or her right to a hearing under this section, any exclusion, penalty, or assessment becomes final.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 03433**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket** **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 03433\03433_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

03433\03433_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 03433\03433_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 03433\03433_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03433\03433_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03433\03433_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03433\03433_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03433\03433_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03433\03433_Part F.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03433\03433_Part G.xls Plant submitted survey file x 03433\03433_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

03433\Certification Statement Plant ID 03433.pdf Plant certification statement 03433\Supplemental Documents\03433 - 2010-09-15 Effluent Guidelines Certification.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 03433\Supplemental Documents\03433_PartA_MAP-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 03433\Supplemental Documents\03433_PartA_WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

03433\Supplemental Documents\03433_PartC_FIGURE-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 03433\Supplemental Documents\03433_PartC_FIGURE-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 03433\Supplemental Documents\03433_PartD_D-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 03433\Supplemental Documents\03433_PartF_OVERHEAD DIAGRAM.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 11-13645 

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:11-cr-00024-GKS-GJK-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff – Appellee,

versus

DOMINIQUE JUST FIELDS, 

a.k.a. Dominique Fields,

Defendant – Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(January 10, 2013)

Before MARCUS, MARTIN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 11-13645 Date Filed: 01/10/2013 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Robert Godfrey, appointed counsel for Dominique Fields in this direct

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the

appellant, and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 

87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that 

counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because 

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit,

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Fields’s convictions and 

sentences are AFFIRMED.

Case: 11-13645 Date Filed: 01/10/2013 Page: 2 of 2
Exhibit No. 23

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
Southern Michigan Bancorp, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No. 333-171250) on Form S-3 and (No. 333-151379) on Form S-8 of Southern Michigan Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated March 28, 2011, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Southern Michigan Bancorp, Inc. and its subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010, which report appears in the December 31, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K of Southern Michigan Bancorp, Inc.

| | /s/ CLIFTON GUNDERSON LLP
| | -------------------------

Toledo, Ohio
March 28, 2011
#### Susan ELSON and Jerome H. Elson, Petitioners, v. Joel RATNER, Respondent.

No. 45970.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 6, 1974.

Certiorari denied. 296 So.2d 604.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and BOYD, Mc-CAIN, DEKLE and OVERTON, JJ., conCur.
#### Lynn L. COSENTINE, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondent.

No. 00-3164.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 9, 2001.

Before MAYER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.

Judgment

PER CURIAM.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDER and ADJUDGED:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.