alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1022.123 Appropriate proof of identity. ( a ) Consumer reporting agencies shall develop and implement reasonable requirements for what information consumers shall provide to constitute proof of identity for purposes of sections 605A, 605B, and 609(a)(1) of the FCRA. In developing these requirements, the consumer reporting agencies must: ( 1 ) Ensure that the information is sufficient to enable the consumer reporting agency to match consumers with their files; and
( 2 ) Adjust the information to be commensurate with an identifiable risk of harm arising from misidentifying the consumer.
( b ) Examples of information that might constitute reasonable information requirements for proof of identity are provided for illustrative purposes only, as follows: ( 1 ) *Consumer file match.* The identification information of the consumer including his or her full name (first, middle initial, last, suffix), any other or previously used names, current and/or recent full address (street number and name, apt. no., city, state, and zip code), full nine digits of Social Security number, and/or date of birth.
( 2 ) *Additional proof of identity.* Copies of government issued identification documents, utility bills, and/or other methods of authentication of a person's identity which may include, but would not be limited to, answering questions to which only the consumer might be expected to know the answer.
Exhibit 32.1


              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-Q for  the  period  ended
September  30,  2009, as filed with the Securities  and  Exchange
Commission  (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, 2009          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.
§ 1074.1 Date of issuance of Bureau rules. A final Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) rule is deemed issued upon the earlier of the following: ( a ) When the final rule is posted on the Bureau's Web site; or
( b ) When the final rule is published in the Federal Register.
# Official Journal L 184/2008

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 184 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5111 July 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 184

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5111 July 2008

---

| Contents | | II   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is not obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | BUDGETS |
| | | European Parliament |
| | | 2008/546/EC, Euratom |
| | * | Final adoption of amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2008 | 1 |

Contents

II   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is not obligatory

page

BUDGETS

European Parliament

2008/546/EC, Euratom

*

Final adoption of amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2008

1

All amounts in this budget document are expressed in euros unless otherwise indicated.Any revenue provided for in Article 18(1) of the Financial Regulation, entered in Titles 5 and 6 of the statement of revenue, may lead to additional appropriations being entered on the headings which bore the initial expenditure giving rise to the corresponding revenue.Figures for outturn refer to all authorised appropriations, including budget appropriations, additional appropriations and earmarked revenue.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company v. Meredith 

Minchew

Appellate case number: 01-21-00330-CV

Trial court case number: 2019-32212

Trial court: 333rd District Court of Harris County

Appellee, Meredith Minchew, has filed her fourth motion to extend the deadline to 

file her appellee’s brief. Appellant, Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, filed 

its appellant’s brief on October 27, 2021, making appellee’s brief initially due to be filed 

on or before November 29, 2021. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b). After obtaining three 

previous extensions, appellee’s brief is currently due to be filed on or before 

February 28, 2022. In our order granting appellee’s third motion for extension, appellee 

was notified that no further extensions would be granted.

On February 23, 2022, appellee filed her fourth motion to extend the deadline, 

requesting that her deadline for filing her appellee’s brief be extended to March 21, 2022. 

In the motion, counsel for appellee states that while the Court notified appellee that no 

further extensions would be granted, the extension was necessary because counsel’s father 

recently passed away. Appellee’s motion further states that appellant is agreed to the relief 

requested in appellee’s motion.

Accordingly, appellee’s motion is granted. Appellee’s brief is due to be filed on 

or before March 21, 2022. No further extensions will be considered, and the failure to 

file an appellee’s brief by the extended deadline may result in the Court setting the case 

“at-issue” and considering and deciding the case without an appellee’s brief. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 10.5(b), 38.6(d).
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _____/s/ April Farris_____

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___March 1, 2022____
#### § 1081.406 Reconsideration.

Within 14 days after service of the Director's decision and order, any party may file with the Director a petition for reconsideration, briefly and specifically setting forth the relief desired and the grounds in support thereof. Any petition filed under this section must be confined to new questions raised by the decision or order and upon which the petitioner had no opportunity to argue, in writing or orally, before the Director. No response to a petition for reconsideration may be filed unless requested by the Director, who will request such response before granting any petition for reconsideration. The filing of a petition for reconsideration does not operate to stay the effective date of the decision or order or to toll the running of any statutory period affecting such decision or order unless specifically so ordered by the Director.
965.56433
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6561

JAMES DONNIE SKELTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; JOHN L. LAMANNA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Beaufort. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (9:06-cv-00247-GRA)

Submitted: August 31, 2006 Decided: September 7, 2006

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Donnie Skelton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

James Donnie Skelton appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § § 2241 (2000) petition. The district

court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Skelton that failure to file

timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate

review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

Despite this warning, Skelton failed to object to the magistrate

judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins,

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140 (1985). Skelton has waived appellate review by failing to

timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

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
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 29, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23475]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Part 52


Federal Acquisition Regulation; Conforming Late Offer Treatment

CFR Correction

    In Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 1 (Parts 52 
to 99), revised as of October 1, 2008, on pages 79 and 80, remove and 
reserve sections 52.214-32 and 52.214-33.

[FR Doc. E9-23475 Filed 9-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE, ACCOUNTING AND

FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Western Gaming Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Robert Muniz, Secretary/Treasurer of the Company, hereby 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 results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/Robert Muniz

Robert Muniz

Secretary/Treasurer

October 4, 2004
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-8073

In Re: RONALD JERRY SAWYER,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-94-1057-R)

Submitted: November 16, 1995 Decided: February 13, 1996

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Jerry Sawyer, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Jerry Sawyer filed this petition for a writ of mandamus

seeking a court order to compel prison officials to provide him

access to photocopying, a notary, legal materials, and the law

library. Because Petitioner has not shown that he has a clear right

to the relief sought and that the respondent has the clear duty to

perform the particular act requested, we grant leave to proceed in

forma pauperis and deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

Mallard v. United States Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989). We

further deny his motion requesting the same relief sought in his

petition. 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.

PETITION DENIED
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David SILVERMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 83-1314.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Sept. 12, 1984.

Decided Aug. 8, 1986.

Brian L. Sullivan, Asst. U.S. Atty., Reno, Nev., for plaintiff-appellee.

Bruce M. Kaufman, Sherman Oaks, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

*340Before WALLACE, ALARCON and NELSON, Circuit Judges.

The petition for a rehearing is granted. The opinion filed September 16, 1985, 771 F.2d 1193 (9th Cir.), is withdrawn.

WALLACE, J., would deny the petition for a rehearing.
# United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 14

- 253C

Filed: August 15 , 2018

____________________________________ __ )

BLACKHAWK

- JAMCO, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

THE UNITED STATES, )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________ __

ORDER

At a status conference held on May 10, 2018, the parties indicated that the plaintiff,

Blackhawk

- Jamco is now defunct and has been taken over by Traveler’s Insurance Co. The

parties further indicated that Traveler’s Insurance Co. had begun negotiations with the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers that would address the issues within the Complaint in the case at bar.

On May 10, 2018, the Court Ordered that Traveler’s Insurance Co. file a Motion for

Substitution as the Real Party in Interest on or before July 9, 2018 , or this Court would have no

choice but to dismiss this case as moot in accordance with Rule 17(a)(3) of the Rules of the

Court of Federal Claims.

Traveler’s Insurance Co. has not filed a Motion for Substitution as the Real Party in

Interest, or otherwise indicated that it will be further pursuing the plaintiff’s claim. As such, this

case is DISMISSED without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 17(a)(3)

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ 

# Loren A. Smith

Loren A. Smith,

Senior Judge
§ 21.6290 Training resources ( a ) *Applicable 38 U.S.C. chapter 31 provisions.* The provisions of § 21.290 through § 21.299 are applicable to veterans pursuing vocational training and employment under this program in the same manner as under 38 U.S.C. chapter 31, except as specified in paragraph (b). (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1524(b)(2))
( b ) *Limitations.* The provisions of § 21.294(b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this part pertaining to independent living services are not applicable to this temporary program. The provisions of § 21.294(b)(1)(iii) of this part pertaining to authorization of independent living services as a part of an Individualized Written Rehabilitation Plan (IWRP) are applicable to this temporary program to the extent provided under § 21.6160 of this part.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1524(b)(2))
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50209-50210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23667]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, September 29, 2009. The business of 
the

[[Page 50210]]

Board requires that this meeting be held with less than one week's 
advance notice to the public, and no earlier announcement of the 
meeting was practicable.

PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve 
System employees.
    2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Smith, Director, or Dave 
Skidmore, Assistant to the Board, Office of Board Members at 202-452-
2955.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not 
only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other 
information about the meeting.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 28, 
2009.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E9-23667 Filed 9-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     Exhibit 4.2
                                 AMENDMENT NO. 2

                                NUTRACEUTIX, INC.

                             1995 STOCK OPTION PLAN


         Section 3 of the Nutraceutix, Inc., 1995 Amended Stock Option Plan (the
"Plan") is hereby amended to reflect the increase in amount of common stock
subject to the Plan from 3,000,000 shares to 4,000,000 shares.

         The date of adoption of this amendment by the Board of Directors was
January 13, 2000. The date of adoption of such amendment by the Shareholders was
May 24, 2000.
Editorial Note on Part 1204
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1204 appear at 77 FR 4646, Jan. 31, 2012.

§ 1204.10 What are FHFA and FHFA-OIG employee responsibilities under the Privacy Act? At least annually, the FHFA Privacy Act Officer or the Senior Agency Official for Privacy will inform employees about the provisions of the Privacy Act, including the Privacy Act's civil liability and criminal penalty provisions. Unless otherwise permitted by law, an authorized FHFA or FHFA-OIG employee shall— ( a ) Collect from individuals only information that is relevant and necessary to discharge FHFA or FHFA-OIG responsibilities;
( b ) Collect information about an individual directly from that individual whenever practicable;
( c ) Inform each individual from whom information is collected of— ( 1 ) The legal authority to collect the information and whether providing it is mandatory or voluntary;
( 2 ) The principal purpose for which FHFA or FHFA-OIG intends to use the information;
( 3 ) The routine uses FHFA or FHFA-OIG may make of the information; and
( 4 ) The effects on the individual, if any, of not providing the information.
( d ) Ensure that the employee's office does not maintain a system of records without public notice and notify appropriate officials of the existence or development of any system of records that is not the subject of a current or planned public notice;
( e ) Maintain all records that are used in making any determination about an individual with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably necessary to ensure fairness to the individual in the determination;
( f ) Except for disclosures made under FOIA, make reasonable efforts, prior to disseminating any record about an individual, to ensure that the record is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete;
( g ) When required by the Privacy Act, maintain an accounting in the specified form of all disclosures of records by FHFA or FHFA-OIG to persons, organizations, or Federal agencies;
( h ) Maintain and use records with care to prevent the unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure of a record to anyone; and
( i ) Notify the appropriate official of any record that contains information that the Privacy Act does not permit FHFA or FHFA-OIG to maintain.
#### § 45.405 Penalty procedures.

Agencies shall impose and collect civil penalties pursuant to the provisions of the Program Fraud and Civil Remedies Act, 31 U.S.C. sections 3803 (except subsection (c)), 3804, 3805, 3806, 3807, 3808, and 3812, insofar as these provisions are not inconsistent with the requirements herein.
§ 39.83 Conferences. ( a ) *Planning conference.* The VCGS may require planning conferences for Operation and Maintenance Projects, primarily to ensure that the State or Tribal Organization becomes oriented to VA's national shrine standards, procedures, requirements, and any technical comments pertaining to the project. These conferences will normally occur over the telephone.
( b ) *Additional conferences.* At any time, VA may recommend an additional telephone conference to provide an opportunity for the State or Tribal Organization to discuss with VA officials the requirements for an Operation and Maintenance Project grant.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2408)
[77 FR 4478, Jan. 30, 2012]
Editorial Note on Part 1102
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part appear at 83 FR 43739, Aug. 28, 2018.

§ 1102.30 Rules of evidence. ( a ) *In general.* ( 1 ) Except as is otherwise set forth in this section, relevant, material and reliable evidence that is not unduly repetitive is admissible to the fullest extent authorized by the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 *et seq.*) and other applicable law.
( 2 ) Evidence that would be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence is admissible in a proceeding conducted under this subpart.
( 3 ) Evidence that would be inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence may be deemed or ruled admissible in a proceeding conducted under this subpart if such evidence is relevant, material, reliable and not unduly repetitive.
( b ) *Stipulations.* Any party may stipulate in writing as to any relevant matters of fact, law, or the authenticity of any relevant documents. The Secretary shall place such stipulations in the public file, and they shall be binding on the parties.
( c ) *Official notice.* Every matter officially noticed by the ASC shall appear in the public file, unless the ASC determines that the matter must be withheld from public disclosure under applicable Federal law.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 16 , 2016 

# Order

Clerk September 16 , 2016

Rehearing No. 613

151277 ( 93 )

ROBERT ARBUCKLE, Personal Representative

of the Estate of CLIFTON M. ARBUCKLE

, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

SC: 151277

v COA: 310611

MCAC: 11

- 000043

GENERAL MOTORS

, LLC,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C ourt

, the motion for rehearing is considered, and it is DENIED

.