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

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4960 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4960

   To extend of period for adjustment of status for certain Liberian 
                               nationals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 3, 2020

   Mr. Reed introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend of period for adjustment of status for certain Liberian 
                               nationals.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF PERIOD FOR ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS FOR CERTAIN 
              LIBERIAN NATIONALS.

    Section 7611(b)(1)(A) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2020 (Public Law 116-92; 133 Stat. 2309; 8 U.S.C. 1255 
note) is amended by striking ``1 year'' and inserting ``June 30, 
2021''.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 38.76 If a recipient fails to issue a Notice of Final Action within 90 days after the complaint was filed.

If, by the end of 90 days from the date on which the complainant filed the complaint, the recipient has failed to issue a Notice of Final Action, the complainant or the complainant's representative may file a complaint with the Director within 30 days of the expiration of the 90-day period. In other words, the complaint must be filed with the Director within 120 days of the date on which the complaint was filed with the recipient.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 95-5083 ANTHONY LEE SCOTT, a/k/a Straight, a/k/a James Antonio Coleman, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-94-1-P) Submitted: November 7, 1996 Decided: November 21, 1996 Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Norman Butler, LAW OFFICE OF HAROLD J. BENDER, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant Anthony Lee Scott appeals his sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base under 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). The plea agreement unambiguously provided that if the Government determined that Scott's assistance was substantial, the Government would move for a downward departure. Although Scottprovided some assistance, the Government did not deem the assistance to be substantial, and consequently declined to file a USSG § 5K1.1* motion. Scott claims that the Government breached the plea agreement by failing to move for a downward departure. Further, Scott asserts that the Government's decision was not rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective. Finding no error, we affirm. A party alleging the breach of a plea agreement bears the burden of proving that breach. United States v. Dixon , 998 F.2d 228, 230 (4thCir. 1993). While a district court generally cannot review the Government's refusal to move for a § 5K1.1 departure, review is necessitated if the defendant makes a "substantial threshold showing" that theGovernment's decision was not rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective. Wade v. United States , 504 U.S. 181, 185-86 (1992). The threshold showing must transcend a mere recitation of the assistance provided by the defendant. Id. at 186. Scott fails to make the substantial threshold showing. Rather, he offers only a description of the extent of his assistance. As the Supreme Court noted in Wade , "[a]lthough a showing of assistance is a necessary condition for relief, it is not a sufficient one." Id. at 187. Thus, we affirm Scott's sentence. We dispense with oral arugment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

_________________________________________________________________ *United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual , § 5K1.1 (Nov. 1994). Scott was sentenced in January 1995. 2materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
#### § 4003.4 Extension of time.

When a document is required under this part to be filed within a prescribed period of time, an extension of time to file will be granted only upon good cause shown and only when the request for an extension is made before the expiration of the time prescribed. The request for an extension must be in writing and state why additional time is needed and the amount of additional time requested. The filing of a request for an extension will stop the running of the prescribed period of time. Requests for extension of the time to submit an appeal should be sent to the Appeals Board; requests for extension of the time to submit a request for reconsideration should be sent to the department that issued the initial determination. When a request for an extension is granted, PBGC will notify the person requesting the extension, in writing, of the amount of additional time granted. When a request for an extension is denied, PBGC will notify the person requesting the extension in writing, and the prescribed period of time will resume running from the date of denial.

[85 FR 10283, Feb. 24, 2020]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 98 (Friday, May 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31934]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12757]


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

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

May 15, 2000.

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., Monday, May 15, 2000.

PLACE: Room 6005, 6th Floor, 1730 K Street NW, Washington, DC.

STATUS: Closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552b(c)(10)).

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: It was determined by unanimous vote of a 
quorum of the Commission that the Commission consider and act upon the 
following in closed session:

    1. Eagle Energy, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor (MSHA) and FMSHRC, 4th 
Cir. No. 00-1073, FMSHRC Docket No. WEVA 98-39.

    No earlier announcement of the meeting was possible.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO: Jean Ellen: (202) 653-5629, (202) 708-
9300 for TDD Relay, 1-800-877-8339 for toll-free.

Jean H. Ellen,
Chief Docket Clerk.
[FR Doc. 00-12757 Filed 5-17-00; 1:30 pm]
BILLING CODE 6735-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 98 (Friday, May 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31927]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12596]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[OR-030-00-1020-XU: GPO-0210]


Notice of Correction; John Day/Snake Resource Advisory Council 
Meeting

AGENCY: Vale District, Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Meeting of John Day/Snake Resource Advisory Council: 
Enterprise, Oregon, May 23 & 24, 2000.

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

SUMMARY: Correction to the second day meeting location published May 3, 
2000 in the Federal Register. On May 24, 2000 the meeting will be held 
next door to Wallowa-Whitman National Forest office, 88401 Hwy 82, at 
the Best Western Rama Inn conference room, Enterprise, Oregon from 8:00 
a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Juan Palma, Bureau of Land Management, 
Vale District Office, 100 Oregon Street, Vale, Oregon 97918, Telephone 
(541) 473-3144.

Juan Palma,
District Manager.
[FR Doc. 00-12596 Filed 5-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-33-M
EXHIBIT 32.2


                            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 Lite King Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

      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 operation of the
Company.


Date:  March 22, 2006                       By:    /s/ David L. Norris
                                                   -----------------------
                                            Name:  David L. Norris
                                            Title: Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Lite King Corporation
and will be retained by Lite King Corporation and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                  EXHIBIT 32.2
EXHIBIT
32.1






Statement Pursuant to
Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002






The
undersigned, Sherry Couturier, CFO of American International
Industries, Inc., a Nevada corporation, hereby makes the following certification
as required by Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, with respect to
the following of this report filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934: Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2008.






The
undersigned certifies that the above annual report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
information contained in the above quarterly report fairly presents, in all
respects, the financial condition of American International Industries, Inc. and
results of its operations.






Date:  November
14, 2008


Sherry
Couturier


CFO


/s/ Sherry
Couturier
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 99 (Monday, May 22, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 32010]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12799]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Parts 1001, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1126, 1131, and 1135

[Docket No. DA-97-12]

Milk in the New England and Other Marketing Areas; Order Amending 
the Orders; Correction

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service published in the Federal 
Register on September 1, 1999, (64 FR 47898) a final rule which 
consolidated 31 Federal milk marketing orders into 11 orders. This 
document corrects an error in section 73 of 7 of those orders by 
changing the term ``pool plant operator'' to ``handler.'' The remaining 
4 orders contain the correct language.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This correction is effective May 22, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas Memoli, Marketing Specialist, 
Order Formulation Branch, USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, Room 2971, South 
Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, (202) 690-1932, e-
mail address [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Need for Correction

    In the final rule (DA-97-12) issued August 23, 1999, and published 
in the Federal Register on September 1, 1999 (64 FR 47898), an error in 
Section 73(a) and (b) of Parts 1001, 1005, 1006, and 1007, and Section 
73(b) of Parts 1126, 1131, and 1135 was inadvertently made. 
Specifically, the term ``handler'' was changed to ``pool plant 
operator.'' The correct term is used in the 4 remaining orders (Parts 
1030, 1032, 1033 and 1124) and is only different in the 7 orders 
because of an oversight in drafting the amendments to the orders. 
Therefore, the applicable provisions of the 7 orders need to be 
corrected.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Parts 1000 to 1199

    Milk orders.

    Accordingly, 7 CFR Parts 1001, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1126, 1131, and 
1135 are corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

PARTS 1001, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1126, 1131, and 1135--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Parts 1001, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1126, 
1131, and 1135 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674, and 7253.

Secs. 1001.73, 1005.73, 1006.73, 1007.73, 1126.73, 1131.73, 
1135.73  [Amended]

    2. In the introductory text of Secs. 1001.73(a) and (b), 1005.73(a) 
and (b), 1006.73(a) and (b), 1007.73(a) and (b), 1126.73(b), 
1131.73(b), and 1135.73(b), the words ``pool plant operator'' are 
revised to read ``handler.''

    Dated: May 17, 2000.
Kenneth C. Clayton,
Acting Administrator, Agricultural Maketing Service.
[FR Doc. 00-12799 Filed 5-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
```
Exhibit 31.2

Certification of Chief Executive Officer under Rule 13a-14a/15d-14(a)

     I Maurice Colson, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of
Visual Bible International, Inc.;

     2.   Based upon my knowledge, this quarterly report does not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report.

     3.   Based upon my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this quarterly report,
fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.

     4.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for
the registrant and have:

          a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this quarterly report is being prepared;

          b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's
disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior
to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date");
and

          c)   Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures
based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

     5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

          a)   All significant deficiencies in the design or
operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the
registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any
material weaknesses in internal controls; and

          b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrant's internal controls.

     6.   The registrant's other certifying officer and I have
indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that
could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date
of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date: June 8, 2004


                                   Maurice Colson, Principal
                                   Executive Officer
#### § 4000.1 What are these filing rules about?

Where a particular regulation calls for their application, the rules in this subpart A of part 4000 tell you what filing methods you may use for any submission (including a payment) to us. They do not cover an issuance from you to anyone other than the PBGC, such as a notice to participants. Also, they do not cover filings with us that are not made under our regulations, such as procurement filings, litigation filings, and applications for employment with us. (Subpart B tells you what methods you may use to issue a notice or otherwise provide information to any person other than us. Subpart C tells you how we determine your filing or issuance date. Subpart D tells you how to compute various periods of time. Subpart E tells you how to maintain required records in electronic form.)
#### Prinscott v. Henry T. Campbell Sons’ Corp.

*651*Dresnin & Stern,*for plaintiffs.

*Michael A. Foley,*for defendant.

April 3, 1958.

Alessandroni, P. J.,

— Plaintiffs’ action in trespass seeks compensation for injuries sustained while mixing or otherwise using defendant’s product “Sakrete”, a cement mixture particularly useful to the do-it-yourself home repairman.

Discovery proceedings by written interrogatories were instituted by plaintiffs. Defendant filed its answers to three of the interrogatories. However, objections were taken and no answers made to interrogatories 2 and 3. Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel defendant to answer the interrogatories.

Interrogatory no. 2 requests that defendant furnish detailed information as to its manufacturing process with particular reference to the manner of mixing the ingredients and the use of any devices for protection of workmen against inhalation and other dangers inherent in the manufacturing process.

Defendant’s objection to this interogatory is that the information is not relevant; defendant contends that although plaintiffs’ case has to do with a mixing process, the disparate quantity present in defendant’s mixing and packing process and that used by plaintiffs have no relationship. Pa. R. C. P. 4007(a) requires that the information desired must be relevant; relevance has a very broad meaning; there appears to *652be a relationship between the mixing by defendant and the mixing by plaintiffs. While vastly different quantities may be involved the mechanical process is identical.

Plaintiffs’ cause of action is said to arise out of the breach of an alleged duty to warn customers not to mix this product with water in a confined, unventilated area. If this be so, then defendant’s mixing process certainly has bearing on the existence of the duty claimed. Defendant must answer this interrogatory.

Interrogatory no. 3 propounds á series of questions on the composition of the product “Sakrete”, and requests' information as to where and by whom component ingredients were manufactured or processed. Defendant’s objection is that this information would require disclosure of its secret process and is protected by the provisions of rule 4011. Rule 4011 (c) prohibits discovery where the interrogatory or question would require' “disclosure of any secret process . . .”.

■ This rule is clear and references to the Federal Discovery Rules are inapposite. See Arcos Corporation v. Weldwire Co., Inc., 86 D. *&*C. 440. Plaintiffs recognize that the information is secret and of vital importance to defendant; it is stated that they will treat the information as confidential. Defendant is not required to rely on such statements because since the answers must be filed of record, they are thus made available for inspection by thfe public, and would result in disclosure. Defendant is entitled to the protection of rule 4011(c).

*Order*

And now, to wit, April 3, 1958, plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendant to answer interrogatory no. 2 is granted, defendant, must answer within 10 days of this order; plaintiffs’ motion to compel defendant to answer interrogatory no. 3 is dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         2,616,857
<SECURITIES>                                   7,523,380
<RECEIVABLES>                                  18,988,162
<ALLOWANCES>                                   631,006
<INVENTORY>                                    23,652,712
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               69,581,281
<PP&E>                                         18,966,483
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 127,990,160
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          26,469,278
<BONDS>                                        31,490,553
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    2,410
<COMMON>                                       183,172
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   127,990,160
<SALES>                                        114,860,315
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  61,414,775
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               29,084,756
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             498,335
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                37,632,747
<INCOME-TAX>                                   14,292,546
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            23,340,201
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   23,340,201
<EPS-BASIC>                                  1.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.17




</TABLE>
§ 25.2 Definitions. When used in these procedures: ( a ) *Order* means Executive Order No. 10988;
( b ) *Agency, employee organization,* and *employee* have the same meaning as in the Order;
( c ) *Recognition* means recognition which is or may be accorded to an employee organization pursuant to the provisions of the Order;
( d ) *Secretary* means the Secretary of Labor.