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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Communications Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be conducted via a telephone conference call. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Thursday, October 15, 2009.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia Robb at 1-888-912-1227, or (414) 231-2360.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that a meeting of the Communications Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel will be held Thursday, October 15, 2009, at 11 a.m. Central Time via a telephone conference call. You can submit written comments to the panel by faxing to (414) 231-2363, or by mail to Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, Stop 1006MIL, 211 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203-2221, or you can contact us at                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*                     Please contact Patricia Robb at 1-888-912-1227 or (414) 231-2360 for dial-in information.                

The agenda will include various IRS issues.

Dated: September 21, 2009.

Shawn F. Collins,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel. 

[FR Doc. E9-23160 Filed 9-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
§ 21.7654 Pursuit and absences. Except as provided in this section, a reservist must submit a verification to VA each month of his or her enrollment during the period for which the reservist is to be paid. This verification shall be in a form prescribed by the Secretary. ( a ) *Exceptions to the monthly verification requirement.* A reservist does not have to submit a monthly verification as described in the introductory text of this section when the reservist— ( 1 ) Is enrolled in a correspondence course; or
( 2 ) Has received an advance payment for the training completed during a month. (Authority: 10 U.S.C. 16136(b); 38 U.S.C. 3680(a), (g))
( b ) *Items to be reported on all monthly verifications.* ( 1 ) The monthly verification for all reservists will include a report on the following items when applicable: ( i ) Continued enrollment in and actual pursuit of the course;
( ii ) The date of interruption or termination of training;
( iii ) Except as provided in § 21.7656(a), changes in the number of credit hours or in the number of clock hours of attendance;
( iv ) Nonpunitive grades; and
( v ) Any other changes or modifications in the course as certified at enrollment.
( 2 ) The verification of enrollment must: ( i ) Contain the information required for release of payment;
( ii ) If required or permitted by the Secretary to be submitted on paper, be signed by the reservist on or after the final date of the reporting period, or if permitted by the Secretary to be submitted by telephone or electronically in a manner designated by the Secretary, be submitted in the form and manner prescribed by the Secretary on or after the final date of the reporting period; and
( iii ) If submitted on paper, clearly show the date on which it was signed.
( c ) *Additional requirements for apprenticeships and other on-job training programs.* ( 1 ) When a reservist is pursuing an apprenticeship or other on-job training, he or she must monthly certify training by reporting the number of hours worked.
( 2 ) The information provided by the reservist must be verified by the training establishment.
(Authority: 10 U.S.C. 2136(b); 38 U.S.C. 3680(a); sec. 705(a)(1), Pub. L. 98-525, 98 Stat. 2565, 2567; sec. 642(c), (d), Pub. L. 101-189, 103 Stat. 1457-1458)
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2900-0597) (Authority: 10 U.S.C. 16136(b); 38 U.S.C. 3680(g))
[61 FR 29308, June 10, 1996, as amended at 65 FR 61101, Oct. 16, 2001]
#### Bernard BULLON *v.*Ernest MONROE

76-92

539 S.W. 2d 434

Opinion delivered July 12, 1976

[Rehearing denied September 13, 1976.]

*Pickens, Boyce, McLarty & Watson,*for appellant.

*Bowie, Carlyle & Erwin,*for appellee.

Conley Byrd, Justice.

Appellant Bernard Bullón brought this action against appellee Ernest Monroe under the Small Claims Statute, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 75-918 (Repl. 1957), to recover $101.00. Monroe admitted that he had agreed to pay for the damages that he had done to appellant’s 1972 Toyota Corona station wagon, but denied that the damages amounted to $101.00. The trial court found the damages to be $50.00 and entered judgment for that amount. On appeal appellant contends:

> “I. The court erred in awarding to the plaintiff only $50.00 in damages.

> II. The court erred in refusing to assess double damages and attorney’s fees.”

*222POINT I. The contention that there is no substantial evidence to support a judgment for less than $101.00 is without merit. Admittedly appellant’s automobile had been damaged prior to the parking lot incident in question and there is a considerable difference of opinion among the witnesses as to whether the damages shown on the repair estimate were caused by the parking lot incident. As we view the evidence the trial court could have fixed the damages at any figure from the $4.58 tender of Monroe to the $101.00 figure testified to by appellant and his witnesses. At least we cannot say that there is no substantial evidence to support the $50.00 finding.

POINT II. Appellant here argues that Monroe had no meritorious defense to this small automobile damage claim and that despite the fact he recovered less than the $101.00 which he claimed, the trial court should have entered a judgment for double the amount of the damages plus a reasonable attorney’s fee. We cannot agree with appellant.

The basic legislative purpose of the small claims statute “was evidently to provide an effective remedy for the enforcement of claims so small that in the past they have often not been worth the expense of litigation and could therefore be ignored by the wrongdoer with impunity,” *Ford*v. *Markham,*235 Ark. 1025, 363 S.W. 2d 926 (1963).Furthermore, being penal in nature it must be strictly construed, *Rouse*v. *Weston,*243 Ark. 396, 420 S.W. 2d 83 (1967). When viewed in the light of the purpose of the statute and its penal nature we must conclude that a wrongdoer has a meritorious defense that will defeat the penalty provisions of the statute when the fact finder determines that the actual loss or damage is less than the amount demanded. To construe the statute otherwise would permit one who suffered only $100 in damages to extort another $100 from the wrongdoers on the premise that if the wrongdoer does not pay the $200 demand it would cost him at least $250 when he went to court.

Affirmed.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 68 FR 14337, Mar. 25, 2003.

#### § 2.104 Contents of opposition.

(a) The opposition must set forth a short and plain statement showing why the opposer believes he, she or it would be damaged by the registration of the opposed mark and state the grounds for opposition. ESTTA requires the opposer to select relevant grounds for opposition. The required accompanying statement supports and explains the grounds.

(b) Oppositions to different applications owned by the same party may be joined in a consolidated opposition when appropriate, but the required fee must be included for each party joined as opposer for each class in which registration is opposed in each application against which the opposition is filed.

(c) Oppositions to applications filed under Section 66(a) of the Act are limited to the goods, services and grounds set forth in the ESTTA cover sheet.

[54 FR 34897, Aug. 22, 1989, as amended at 68 FR 55766, Sept. 26, 2003; 81 FR 69972, Oct. 7, 2016]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.1028 Deferment of publication.

The international design application may contain a request for deferment of publication, provided the application does not designate the United States or any other Contracting Party which does not permit deferment of publication.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
#### § 1.480 [Reserved]
§ 21.5076 Entitlement charge—overpayment cases. ( a ) *Overpayment cases.* VA will make a charge against an individual's entitlement of an overpayment of educational assistance allowance only if: ( 1 ) The overpayment is discharged in bankruptcy; or
( 2 ) VA waives the overpayment and does not recover it; or
( 3 ) The overpayment is compromised. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3231)
( b ) *Debt discharged in bankruptcy or is waived.* If the overpayment is discharged in bankruptcy or is waived and is not recovered, the entitlement charge will be at the appropriate rate for the elapsed period covered by the overpayment (exclusive of interest, administrative costs of collection, court costs and marshal fees). (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3231; Pub. L. 94-502)
( c ) *Overpayment is compromised.* ( 1 ) If the overpayment is compromised and the compromise offer is less than the amount of interest, administrative costs of collection, court costs and marshal fees, the charge against entitlement will be at the appropriate rate for the elapsed period covered by the overpayment (exclusive of interest, administrative costs of collection, court costs and marshal fees).
( 2 ) If the overpayment is compromised and compromise offer is equal to or greater than the amount of interest, administrative costs of collection, court costs and marshal fees, the charge against entitlement will be determined by— ( i ) Subtracting from the sum paid in the compromise offer the amount attributable to interest, administrative costs of collection, court costs and marshal fees.
( ii ) Subtracting the remaining amount of the overpayment balance determined in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section from the amount of the original overpayment (exclusive of interest, administrative costs of collection, court costs and marshal fees),
( iii ) Dividing the result obtained in paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section by the amount of the original debt (exclusive of interest, administrative costs of collection, court costs and marshal fees), and
( iv ) Multiplying the percentage obtained in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section by the amount of the entitlement otherwise chargeable for the period of the original overpayment.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3231)
[45 FR 31, Jan. 2, 1980, as amended at 52 FR 45181, Nov. 25, 1987]
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40761 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus BRYAN THOMAS FAULK, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-95-CR-003
- - - - - - - - - - April 16, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Bryan Thomas Faulk appeals the revocation of his supervised release. Faulk contends that his sentence was imposed in violation of law because the district court sentenced him to a term of imprisonment in excess of the applicable range set forth in U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, p.s. "[W]hen a court sentences a defendant upon revoking his supervised release under [18 U.S.C.] § 3583(e), the policy statements of Chapter 7 are advisory only." United States v. Mathena , 23 F.3d 87, 93 (5th Cir. 1994); United StatesNo. 95-40761 -2- v. Escamilla , 70 F.3d 835, 835 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied , 1996 WL 106088 (U.S. Apr. 1, 1996) (No. 95-8171). Faulk contends that the panel's decision in Escamillais contrary to prior Supreme Court precedent, the plain language of the 1994 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3551(a)(4), the legislative purpose of the Guidelines, and the clear intent of the legislators. However, as only an "overriding Supreme Court decision," a change in statutory law, or this court sitting en banc may overrule a panel decision, Faulk cannot prevail on this claim. United States v. Zuniga-Salinas , 952 F.2d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 1992) (en banc). AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 99.6


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. §1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Cybin Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the period ended March 31, 2022 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Doug Drysdale, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


June 22, 2022 /s/ Doug Drysdale  Doug DrysdaleChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Cybin Inc. and will be retained by Cybin Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 02

- 00 402

- CV

Annette Cooper, Appellant

v.

Brad Cooper, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY, 33RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 19,008, HONORABLE GUILFORD L. JONES, III, JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellant Annette Cooper has filed a motion to dismiss her appeal. She represents that

appellee agrees with her motion.

We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Yeakel

Dismissed on Appellant

=

s Motion

Filed: August 30, 2002

Do Not Publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                          12,254
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  124,974
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,644
<INVENTORY>                                     65,325
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               222,730
<PP&E>                                         673,995
<DEPRECIATION>                                 358,914
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 729,174
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          136,648
<BONDS>                                        313,768
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           683
<OTHER-SE>                                     209,363
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   729,174
<SALES>                                        743,926
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               745,121
<CGS>                                          632,094
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  699,295
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,890
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,936
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,714
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,222
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,222
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.96


</TABLE>
#### WANNER *v.*MARTIN.

Appeal and Error — Demurrer to Plea — Final Judgment.

Error does not lie to review an order sustaining plaintiff’s demurrer to defendant’s plea in abatement, with leave to defendant to plead to the declaration, because the order entered is not a final determination; defendant’s remedy is by writ of certiorari under Act No. 310, Pub. Acts 1905.

Error to Saginaw; Gage, J.

Submitted October 10, 1912.

(Docket No. 25.)

Decided January 3, 1913.

Case by Madeline Clements Wanner against Fred J. Martin for slander. Defendant pleaded in abatement and a demurrer to the plea was sustained. Defendant brings error.

Dismissed.

*McHugh, Gallagher & McGann,*for appellant.

*Thomas A. E. Weadoch,*for appellee.

Ostrander, J.

To plaintiff’s declaration defendant filed a plea in abatement, and to this plea plaintiff demurred. The demurrer, coming on to be heard, was sustained, with leave to defendant to plead issuably. De*504fendant sued out a writ or error. It is objected on the part of appellee that the order of the court below is not final. We are referred to the case of *Campbell*v. *Hud*son, 106 Mich. 523 (64 N. W. 483), as authority for the proposition that the order sought to be reversed is final. In that case a demurrer to a plea was overruled, and it was said by this court that, although not final in form, the order was in substance and effect a final determination of the case, and that the trial court should have entered judgment quashing the writ. It is plain that the order now sought to be reviewed is not a final order. An expeditious method of reviewing such rulings is created by Act No. 310, Pub. Acts 1905.

The writ is dismissed, with the costs of printing the brief and an attorney’s fee of $15 to appellee.

Steers, C. J., and Moore, McAlvay, Brooke, Kuhn, Stone, and Bird, JJ., concurred.
Exhibit
      32.1


**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the quarterly report of Bel Fuse Inc (the "Company") on Form
      10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission (the "Report"), I, Daniel Bernstein, President and Chief Executive
      Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented
      and consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented.





Dated:
      August 8, 2008





By:
            /s/
                Daniel BernsteinDaniel
                Bernstein, Presidentand
                Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tofutti Brands Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 28, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Mintz, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of operations of the
Company.



/s/ David Mintz *
-----------------
David Mintz
Chief Executive Officer
Date:  May 12, 2009


* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.