alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

§ 3.27 Automatic adjustment of benefit rates. ( a ) *Improved pension.* Whenever there is a cost-of-living increase in benefit amounts payable under section 215(i) of title II of the Social Security Act, VA shall, effective on the dates such increases become effective, increase by the same percentage each maximum annual rate of pension. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5312(a))
( b ) *Parents' dependency and indemnity compensation* —*maximum annual income limitation and maximum monthly rates.* Whenever there is a cost-of-living increase in benefit amounts payable under section 215(i) of title II of the Social Security Act, VA shall, effective on the dates such increases become effective, increase by the same percentage the annual income limitations and the maximum monthly rates of dependency indemnity compensation for parents. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5312(b)(1))
( c ) *Monetary allowance under 38 U.S.C. chapter 18 for certain individuals who are children of Vietnam veterans or children of veterans with covered service in Korea.* Whenever there is a cost-of-living increase in benefit amounts payable under section 215(i) of Title II of the Social Security Act, VA shall, effective on the dates such increases become effective, increase by the same percentage the monthly allowance rates under 38 U.S.C. chapter 18. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1805(b)(3), 1815(d), 1821, 5312)
( d ) *Medal of Honor pension.* Beginning in the year 2004, VA shall, effective December 1 of each year, increase the monthly Medal of Honor pension by the same percentage as the percentage by which benefit amounts payable under section 215(i) of Title II of the Social Security Act are increased effective December 1 of such year. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1562(e))
( e ) *Publishing requirements.* Increases in pension rates, parents' dependency and indemnity compensation rates and income limitation, the monthly allowance rates under 38 U.S.C. chapter 18 and the Medal of Honor pension made under this section shall be published in the Federal Register.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1805(b)(3), 1815(d), 5312(c)(1))
[44 FR 45934, Aug. 6, 1979, as amended at 52 FR 34908, Sept. 14, 1987; 62 FR 51278, Sept. 30, 1997; 67 FR 49586, July 31, 2002; 68 FR 55467, Sept. 26, 2003; 76 FR 4247, Jan. 25, 2011]
1 The IJ’s decision, therefore, constitutes the final agency determination for purposes of judicial review. See Dominguez v. Ashcroft , 336 F.3d 678, 679 n.1 (8th Cir. 2003); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2004). 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-2153

___________ Yawo Elesesi Amenuvor, * * Petitioner, * * Petition for Review of an v. * Order of the Board of * Immigration Appeals. John Ashcroft, Attorney General * of the United States, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Respondent. *

___________ Submitted: December 3, 2004 Filed: December 10, 2004

___________ Before MURPHY, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Yawo Elesesi Amenuvor, a citizen of Togo, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed without opinion an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) denial of asylum and related relief. 1 Amenuvor challenges the IJ’s adverse credibility determination and argues that his case was not appropriate for an affirmance without opinion.-2- Initially, we note that Amenuvor’s argument regarding the BIA’s decision to affirm his case without opinion is unreviewable. See Ngure v. Ashcroft , 367 F.3d 975, 981-88 (8th Cir. 2004) (finding that BIA’s decision whether to employ affirmance-without-opinion procedure in particular case is committed to agency discretion and not subject to judicial review).
After careful review of the record, we conclude that the IJ’s decision on Amenuvor’s asylum application is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Menendez-Donis v. Ashcroft , 360 F.3d 915, 917-19 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review). Specifically, the IJ discredited Amenuvor’s testimony about past persecution he suffered, and we defer to that credibility finding because it was supported by specific, cogent reasons for disbelief. See Nyama v. Ashcroft , 357 F.3d 812, 817 (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (deference standard). In addition, because Amenuvor failed to meet the burden of proof on his asylum claim, he failed to meet the higher burden for withholding of removal. See Kratchmarov v. Heston , 172 F.3d 551, 555 (8th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we deny the petition. Amenuvor moved for a stay of deportation before his voluntary-departure period expired, and we therefore deem this court’s grant of his unopposed motion to include a stay of his voluntary-departure period as well. SeeRife v. Ashcroft , 374 F.3d 606, 616 (8th Cir. 2004).

______________________________
#### §§ 1203.13-1203.19 [Reserved]
#### § 59.90 Line item adjustments to grants.

After a grant has been awarded, upon request from the State representative, VA may approve a change in a line item (line items are identified in Form 424C which is set forth in § 59.170(o) of this part) of up to 10 percent (increase or decrease) of the cost of the line item if the change would be within the scope or objective of the project and would not change the amount of the grant.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1710, 1742, 8105, 8131-8137)
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****National compensation survey.State and local government. Palatka, FL.**
 
SuDoc Number:L 2.121/9:P 17/

Item Number:0768-B-09 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000874634
 
2008 | 2009 | 2010
 
April 6, 2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-50911

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

NICACIO MUNOZ-HERRERA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:13-CR-336-1

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Nicacio Munoz-Herrera (Munoz) appeals the 36-month sentence imposed 

after his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following a prior deportation. 

He argues that the above-guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable 

because it was greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals of 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a). Munoz asserts that the district court gave inordinate weight 

to his remote, prior offenses and failed to give sufficient weight to his personal 

circumstances.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 14, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-50911 Document: 00512696842 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2014
No. 13-50911

Munoz has not shown that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. 

The record reflects that the district court had an adequate basis for the 

sentence imposed and was guided by the § 3553(a) factors in deciding that an 

upward variance was merited. The district court made an individualized 

assessment and concluded that the guidelines range did not adequately take 

into account the § 3553(a) factors, including Munoz’s history and 

characteristics, the need to promote respect for the laws of the United States, 

the need to protect the public, and the need to deter future crimes. To the 

extent that Munoz disagrees with his sentence and the district court’s 

evaluation of the § 3553(a) factors, he has not shown that the district court 

abused its discretion on that basis. See Gall v. United States, 522 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007). 

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 13-50911 Document: 00512696842 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/14/2014
January 5, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY F/K/A HOUSTON FIRE & 

CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant

NO. 14-11-00049-CV V.

AUSTIN POWER INC., Appellee

____________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, Austin Power Inc., 

signed December 6, 2010, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected 

the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below 

AFFIRMED.

We order appellant, GEICO General Insurance Company f/k/a Houston Fire & 

Casualty Insurance Company, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. We further order 

this decision certified below for observance.
This is a printer friendly version.

Jobs at PBGC

en Español

Contact Us

    - About
    - Workers & Retirees
    - Practitioners
    - Press & Policymakers
    -    

 

>About

>Workers & Retirees          - >   MyPBA login

>Practitioners          - >   My PAA login

>Press & Policymakers

 

PBGC is a federal corporation created by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. It currently protects the pensions                     of nearly 44 million American workers and retirees in 30,330 private single-employer and multiemployer defined benefit pension                     plans. PBGC receives no funds from general tax revenues. Operations are financed by insurance premiums set by Congress and                     paid by sponsors of defined benefit plans, investment income, assets from pension plans trusteed by PBGC, and recoveries from                     the companies formerly responsible for the plans.                  

            - Directorio de Búsqueda de Pensiones

            - Pension Search Directory

            - Who we are

            - What PBGC guarantees

            - How pension plans end

            - What to do if your pension plan ends

            - How to check if we insure your pension

            - How PBGC operates

          -  PBGC Director Millard Hails Continuation of Pension Plans At Dura Automotive (June 27, 2008) 
          -  PBGC Protects Rockford Products Corp. Pension Plan (June 24, 2008) 
          -  Statement by PBGC Director Charles E.F. Millard on Expiration of Pension Waivers at Delphi Corp. (May 09, 2008) 
          -  PBGC Will Meet With Participants in Tom's Foods Pension Plan (May 06, 2008) 
          -  Rebecca Anne Batts Appointed PBGC Inspector General (April 30, 2008) 

HomeProcurement OpportunitiesPrivacy PolicyDisclaimerCustomer Service PledgeFOIANo FEAR Act Data[email protected]GobiernoUSASite Index
2013 Information Collection Request Update for the 40 CFR Part 64 

Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM) Rule

Overview

Every three years we are required to renew the CAM rule ICR. In this current evaluation we reviewed 

and updated, where necessary, labor rates; estimates of labor hours needed for recordkeeping; the 

number of permits, facilities and pollutant specific emissions units (PSEUs); and the formulas used to 

calculate burden.

Changes in Burden Estimates from 2010 to 2013

 The total annualized cost for all units and permitting authorities decreased from $264 to $14.2 

million. 

 The total annual hour burden decreased from 7,453,581 to 343,187 hours.

 The estimated number of facilities subject to the CAM rule increased from 3,174 to 3,290. This 

increase is based on assumptions for growth outlined in 2010 ICR. The estimated number of 

facilities with newly-issued permits continues to be 112.

Rationale for Changes in Burden

 The decrease in burden is a result of:

o Most facilities now using electronic, not manual, monitoring to record data, thus resulting 

in a decrease of labor hours.

o All existing facilities have permits with approved CAM, therefore significantly reducing 

the costs for new monitoring development. 

o Updates to the formulas used to calculate burden to better reflect projected trends for the 

next three years. 

Background 

 Owners and operators of title V sources whose pollutant specific emissions units (PESUs) have 

active control devices and have a pre-control potential to emit major amounts of regulated air 

pollutants are required to submit monitoring, compliance certification, periodic reporting and 

record keeping information to their permitting authorities as part 64 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (also known as the CAM rule).

 Owners or operators are required to submit monitoring reports on no less than a semi-annual 

basis, and permitting authorities are required to store and maintain these data for at least five 

years.
**HOME | 	  ABOUT US | 	  CONTACT | 	  REGIONAL MANAGERS**Nautical Charts & Pubs****Surveys & Wrecks****GIS & Other Products****Research & Development****Customer Service****Business Opportunities****Education****NGA Chart: 94028          Scale: 1,000,000          Edition: 8          Edition Date: 26-SEP-09          CORRECTED TO NTM:  2009/48**Notice ListingOCVLeftIndex-  **Click the +/- buttons and drag the slider tool (solid triangle) 				to zoom in and out.** 
-  **Click the arrow buttons to pan left/right and up/down.** 
-  **Drag 				the navigation box in the upper left hand corner to move around 				the chart image.								This chart display or derived product can be used as a planning or analysis tool and may not be used as a navigational aid. 								NOTE: Use the official, full scale NGA nautical chart for real navigation whenever possible.  These are available from authorized 				NGA nautical chart sales agents.  Screen captures of the on-line viewable charts available here do NOT fulfill chart carriage 				requirements for regulated commercial vessels under Titles 33 and 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations.								Adobe Flash Player		  		is required to view the chart image.				Powered by Zoomify.** 
Privacy  |  Disclaimer  |  NOAA's National Ocean Service  |  NOAA  |  U.S. Department of Commerce **
# STATEOFLOUISIANA COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT LAUREEN OLSON VERSUS LOUISIANA PATIENT'S COMPENSATION FUND OVERSIGHT BOARD NO. 2021 CW 1507

MARCH 14, 2022 InRe: Louisiana Patient's Compensation Fund Oversight Board, applying for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parishof EastBatonRouge, No. 652,921. BEFORE: GUIDRY, HOLDRIDGE, AND CHUTZ, JJ. WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. This court requires a copy of the transcript from the September 28, 2021 hearing and a copy of all evidence admitted at that hearing in connection with the exception ofres judicata. Supplementation of this considered. See Uniform Rules Rules 2-18.7 and 4-9. writ application will not be of Louisiana Courts of Appeal, In the event relator seeks to file a new application with this court, it must contain all pertinent documentation, including the missing item described above, andmust comply with Rule 2-12.2 of the Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal. Any new application must be filed on or before April 13, 2022 anymust contain a copy of this ruling.

COURT OFAPPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

COURT .JMG GH WRC
§ 1208.3 Referrals to the Department of the Treasury, collection services, and use of credit bureaus. ( a ) *Referral of delinquent debts.* ( 1 ) FHFA shall transfer to the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury any past due, legally enforceable nontax debt that has been delinquent for a period of 180 days or more so that the Secretary may take appropriate action to collect the debt or terminate collection action in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3716, 5 U.S.C. 5514, 5 CFR 550.1108, 31 CFR part 285, and the FCCS.
( 2 ) FHFA may transfer any past due, legally enforceable nontax debt that has been delinquent for less than a period of 180 days to a debt collection center for collection in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3716, 5 U.S.C. 5514, 5 CFR 550.1108, 31 CFR part 285, and the FCCS.
( b ) *Collection Services.* Section 13 of the Debt Collection Act (31 U.S.C. 3718) authorizes agencies to enter into contracts for collection services to recover debts owed the Federal Government. The Debt Collection Act requires that certain provisions be contained in such contracts, including: ( 1 ) The agency retains the authority to resolve a dispute, including the authority to terminate a collection action or refer the matter to the Attorney General for civil remedies; and
( 2 ) The contractor is subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as it applies to private contractors, as well as subject to State and Federal laws governing debt collection practices.
( c ) *Referrals to collection agencies.* ( 1 ) FHFA has authority to contract for collection services to recover delinquent debts in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3718(a) and the FCCS (31 CFR 901.5).
( 2 ) FHFA may use private collection agencies where it determines that their use is in the best interest of the Federal Government. Where FHFA determines that there is a need to contract for collection services, the contract will provide that: ( i ) The authority to resolve disputes, compromise claims, suspend or terminate collection action, or refer the matter to the Department of Justice for litigation or to take any other action under this part will be retained by FHFA;
( ii ) Contractors are subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, to the extent specified in 5 U.S.C. 552a(m) and to applicable Federal and State laws and regulations pertaining to debt collection practices, such as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692;
( iii ) The contractor is required to strictly account for all amounts collected;
( iv ) The contractor must agree that uncollectible accounts shall be returned with appropriate documentation to enable FHFA to determine whether to pursue collection through litigation or to terminate collection; and
( v ) The contractor must agree to provide any data in its files requested by FHFA upon returning the account to FHFA for subsequent referral to the Department of Justice for litigation.
§ 102.5 Responsibility for responding to requests. ( a ) *In general.* Except as stated in paragraph (b) of this section, the USPTO will process FOIA requests directed to USPTO. In determining records responsive to a request, the FOIA Officer shall include only those records within USPTO's possession and control as of the date the FOIA Officer receives the request.
( b ) *Consultations and referrals.* If the FOIA Officer receives a request for a record in USPTO's possession in which another Federal agency subject to FOIA has the primary interest, the FOIA Officer shall refer the record to that agency for direct response to the requester. The FOIA Officer shall consult with another Federal agency before responding to a requester if the FOIA Officer receives a request for a record in which another Federal agency subject to FOIA has a significant interest, but not the primary interest; or another Federal agency not subject to FOIA has the primary interest or a significant interest. Ordinarily, the agency that originated a record will be presumed to have the primary interest in it.
( c ) *Notice of referral.* Whenever a FOIA Officer refers a document to another Federal agency for direct response to the requester, the FOIA Officer will ordinarily notify the requester in writing of the referral and inform the requester of the name of the agency to which the document was referred.
( d ) *Timing of responses to consultations and referrals.* All consultations and referrals shall be handled according to the date the FOIA request was received by the first Federal agency.
( e ) *Agreements regarding consultations and referrals.* The FOIA Officer may make agreements with other Federal agencies to eliminate the need for consultations or referrals for particular types of records.
#### James J. Buckley, Respondent, *v.*Joseph Zimmerman et al., Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, tenth district, for the sum. of $371 and costs, in favor of the plaintiff.

*705Martin Saxe, for appellants.

Fitzgerald *&*Stokes, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The complaint is for the use of a steam hod elevator. There is no evidence that shows or tends to show that the defendant Albert Saxe ever hired a hod elevator from plaintiff. It is true that one o-f the plaintiff’s witnesses testified that the defendant Saxe promised that he would keep from Zimmerman (the person to whom plaintiff had rented the hod elevator) out of his contract, and out of his extras, sufficient to pay plaintiff’s bill, but the original'indebtedness was Zimmerman’s, and even if the action had been brought on the theory that the defendant Saxe had promised to pay the debt of another, there being no consideration for such promise, plaintiff cannot recover. It was not necessary for defendant to plead the Statute of Frauds, because the complaint against him was not on his promise to pay the debt of another.

Judgment is reversed and a new trial ordered in the Municipal Court for the tenth district, with costs to the defendant Saxe, to abide the event.

Present: Truax, P. J., Scott and Dugro, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to defendant Saxe to abide event.
Exhibit 32(a)


            CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF 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  the  IGENE Biotechnology,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period  ended
September  30,  2006, as filed with the Securities  and  Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen F.  Hiu,
President  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, to the best of my knowledge:

     (1). The  Report  fully  complies  with  the requirements of
          Section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange  Act
          of 1934, as amended; and

     (2). The  information  contained   in   the   Report  fairly
          presents,  in  all  material  respects,  the  financial
          condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: November 13, 2006          By:  /S/ STEPHEN F. HIU
                                      ___________________________
                                          STEPHEN F. HIU
                                          President



A  signed original of this written statement required by  Section
906  has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company  and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission
or its staff upon request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DAVID G. HAMILTON,

Defendant Below, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below, Appellee. §

§ No. 172, 2020 § § § § Court Below–Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § Cr. ID No. 0606004087 (K) § §

Submitted: August 11, 2020 Decided: August 19, 2020

ORDER

It appears to the Court that, on July 22, 2020, the Chief Deputy Clerk issued

a notice, sent by certified mail, to the appellant, David Hamilton, to show cause why

his appeal should not be dismissed for his failure to file his opening brief and

appendix. Hamilton received the notice to show cause, as evidenced by the return

receipt that was filed with the Court on July 30, 2020. A timely response to the

notice to show cause was due on or before August 10, 2020. Hamilton has not

responded to the notice to show cause nor has he filed an opening brief. Dismissal

of the appeal is therefore deemed to be unopposed.2

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2)

and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Chief Justice