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

AOA-PI-98-02 - August 4, 1998

TO : STATE AGENCIES ON AGING ADMINISTERING PLANS UNDER TITLE III OF THE OLDER 

AMERICANS ACT OF 1965, AS AMENDED

SUBJECT : REALLOTMENT PROCEDURE for 1998 TITLE III Formula Grant Funds

LEGAL AND RELATED REFERENCES : Section 304(b) of the Older Americans Act of 1965, As 

Amended

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide guidance for state agencies to notify the 

Administration on Aging (AoA) of:

1) the amount, if any, of FY 1998 Title III funds which states will not use by September 30, 1998, and 

will release for reallotment; and 2) the request for additional Title III funds which could be obligated 

by the state agencies in FY 1998 and, FY 1999. As you know, Title III funds, which are made available 

through reallotment, are available for obligation by state agencies during the following fiscal year in 

which funds were appropriated.

Release of Funds

State agencies not intending to use the full amount of their Title III allotments should submit a 

statement signed by the authorized state agency official releasing Title III funds for reallotment. This 

statement must identify from which allotment the funds are being released. If a state releases funds 

for reallotment, a revised Grant Award will be issued reflecting the decrease.

Request for Funds

If additional funds can be utilized, state agencies should submit a brief statement requesting 

additional funds signed by the appropriate state agency official. The statement must identify the 

allotment for which additional funds are being requested. States should submit an original and one 

copy of their statements to the AoA Regional Administrator by September 11, 1998. States are 

reminded that funds received in reallotment are one-time awards, and there is no assurance of the 

receipt of similar amounts in FY 1999.

Jeanette C. Takamura

Assistant Secretary for Aging
DUE DATE: September 11, 1998, for submission to

INQUIRIES: Inquiries should be addressed to Regional Administrators on Aging, DHHS regional offices.
I

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4823

To amend title 5, United States Code, to prohibit executive agencies from

using funds to hire independent entities to influence employees with

respect to exercising their rights of collective bargaining.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 11, 2000

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Government Reform

A BILL

To amend title 5, United States Code, to prohibit executive

agencies from using funds to hire independent entities

to influence employees with respect to exercising their

rights of collective bargaining.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 4823 IH

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FUNDS TO HIRE

2 INDEPENDENT ENTITIES TO INFLUENCE EM3 PLOYEES WITH RESPECT TO COLLECTIVE

4 BARGAINING.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter I of chapter 71 of title

6 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end

7 the following new section:

8 ‘‘§ 7107. Prohibition against use of funds to hire inde9 pendent entities to influence employees

10 with respect to collective bargaining

11 ‘‘No executive agency may use any funds appro12 priated to the agency to hire an independent labor rela13 tions consultant or other independent contractor or

14 organization—

15 ‘‘(1) to undertake activities for which the direct

16 or indirect objective is to persuade the employees of

17 the agency to exercise or not to exercise, or to per18 suade or inform such employees with respect to the

19 manner of exercising, the right to organize or bar20 gain collectively through representatives of their own

21 choosing; or

22 ‘‘(2) to supply the agency with information con23 cerning the activities of employees or a labor organi24 zation in connection with representation for the pur25 pose of collective bargaining.’’.
3

•HR 4823 IH

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sec2 tions at the beginning of such chapter is amended by in3 serting after the item relating to section 7106 the fol4 lowing new item:

‘‘7107. Prohibition against use of funds to hire independent entities to influence

employees with respect to collective bargaining.’’.

Æ
#### § 3.40-35 Sector Corpus Christi Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone.

Sector Corpus Christi's office is located in Corpus Christi, TX. Subject to the overriding provisions of § 3.40-5, the boundaries of Sector Corpus Christi's Marine Inspection Zone and Captain of the Port Zone start at the junction of the sea and the east bank of the Colorado River at latitude 28°35′44′′ N, longitude 95°58′48′′ W, proceeding north along the east bank of the Colorado River to Colorado County, TX; thence southwest along the northern boundary of Wharton County, TX; thence northwest along the eastern and northern boundaries of Colorado, Fayette, Bastrop, Travis, Burnet, Llano, Mason, Menard, Schletcher, Irion, Reagan, Upton, and Ector Counties, TX; thence west along the northern boundary of Ector and Winkler Counties, TX, to the Texas-New Mexico border; thence north along the New Mexico border to the New Mexico-Colorado border; thence west along the New Mexico-Colorado border to the intersection of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and Arizona borders; thence south along the New Mexico-Arizona border to the United States-Mexican border; thence southeast along the United States-Mexican border to the outermost extent of the EEZ at latitude 25°57′22′′ N, longitude 97°08′20′′ W; thence east along the outermost extent of the EEZ to latitude 25°59′50′′ N, longitude 93°32′21′′ W; thence northwest to the point of origin.

[USCG-2006-25556, 72 FR 36323, July 2, 2007, as amended by USCG-2013-0491, 80 FR 20163, Apr. 15, 2015]
§ 825.104 Covered employer. ( a ) An employer covered by FMLA is any person engaged in commerce or in any industry or activity affecting commerce, who employs 50 or more employees for each working day during each of 20 or more calendar workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year. Employers covered by FMLA also include any person acting, directly or indirectly, in the interest of a covered employer to any of the employees of the employer, any successor in interest of a covered employer, and any public agency. Public agencies are covered employers without regard to the number of employees employed. Public as well as private elementary and secondary schools are also covered employers without regard to the number of employees employed. *See* § 825.600.
( b ) The terms commerce and industry affecting commerce are defined in accordance with section 501(1) and (3) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (LMRA) (29 U.S.C. 142(1) and (3)), as set forth in the definitions at § 825.102 of this part. For purposes of the FMLA, employers who meet the 50-employee coverage test are deemed to be engaged in commerce or in an industry or activity affecting commerce.
( c ) Normally the legal entity which employs the employee is the employer under FMLA. Applying this principle, a corporation is a single employer rather than its separate establishments or divisions. ( 1 ) Where one corporation has an ownership interest in another corporation, it is a separate employer unless it meets the joint employment test discussed in § 825.106, or the integrated employer test contained in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
( 2 ) Separate entities will be deemed to be parts of a single employer for purposes of FMLA if they meet the integrated employer test. Where this test is met, the employees of all entities making up the integrated employer will be counted in determining employer coverage and employee eligibility. A determination of whether or not separate entities are an integrated employer is not determined by the application of any single criterion, but rather the entire relationship is to be reviewed in its totality. Factors considered in determining whether two or more entities are an integrated employer include: ( i ) Common management;
( ii ) Interrelation between operations;
( iii ) Centralized control of labor relations; and
( iv ) Degree of common ownership/financial control.
( d ) An employer includes any person who acts directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer to any of the employer's employees. The definition of employer in section 3(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 203(d), similarly includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee. As under the FLSA, individuals such as corporate officers “acting in the interest of an employer” are individually liable for any violations of the requirements of FMLA.
[78 FR 8902, Feb. 6, 2013, as amended at 82 FR 2230, Jan. 9, 2017]
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








The
undersigned officer of Acme United Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies
to my knowledge that the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 (the “Report”), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.  This certification is provided
solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be a part of the
Report or “filed” for any purpose whatsoever.








By
                    /s/  Walter C.
      JohnsenWalter C.
      JohnsenChairman
      of the Board andChief
      Executive Officer







Dated:  May
10, 2010
















A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, 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 Acme United Corporation and
will be retained by Acme United Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4804 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4804

 To require that fines paid to the United States as a result of motor 
fuel price investigations shall be rebated to consumers in the form of 
             reductions in Federal motor fuel excise taxes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 29, 2000

  Mr. Stupak introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require that fines paid to the United States as a result of motor 
fuel price investigations shall be rebated to consumers in the form of 
             reductions in Federal motor fuel excise taxes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Gas Price Equity Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. REBATE TO CONSUMERS OF FINES PAID TO UNITED STATES AS A RESULT 
              OF MOTOR FUEL PRICE INVESTIGATIONS.

    (a) In General.--If, as a result of any investigation by the United 
States into motor fuel prices, any person or entity pays a fine or 
other penalty to the United States, the amount so paid shall be rebated 
to consumers as provided in subsection (b).
    (b) Excise Tax Reductions.--
            (1) In general.--The rates of tax under the Internal 
        Revenue Code of 1986 on any motor fuel shall be reduced by the 
        amount (and for the period) determined by the Secretary of the 
        Treasury to be necessary to carry out this section with respect 
        to such fuel.
            (2) Amount of reduction.--The amount of fuel tax rate 
        reduction shall, with respect to any fuel, be the amount which 
        will result in a reduction in revenues to the United States 
        equal to the amount of fines and other amounts referred to in 
        subsection (a) with respect to such fuel.
            (3) Regional differentiation.--The Secretary of the 
        Treasury shall, to the extent possible, provide for fuel tax 
        rate reductions in any region which are proportional to the 
        extent of the conduct (to which the fine or other amount 
        relates) which occurred in such region.
            (4) Reductions to be reflected in retail price.--The 
        Secretary of the Treasury shall take all reasonable steps to 
        attempt to ensure that the reductions under this Act are 
        reflected in the retail price of the fuel.
                                 <all>
```
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"ADR.gov","provider_url":"https:\/\/adr.gov","title":"AMS-Based Contracting","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"HXl1z8lZr6\"><a href=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/04-ams\/\">AMS-Based Contracting<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/adr.gov\/guidance\/adrguide-home\/04-ams\/embed\/#?secret=HXl1z8lZr6\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“AMS-Based Contracting” — ADR.gov\" data-secret=\"HXl1z8lZr6\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n"}
## MA**TERIA LS NOT INCLUDED IN** 

**AI RWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (A**  **D) DOCKET FAA**  **- 20**  **11 -**  **1115** Docket Number

**20 10**  **- SW**  **- 011**  **- AD**  Directorate Identifier Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket - NPRM Sikorsky Rotorcraft Flight Manuals SA S92A – RFM – 002, Revision 8; – 003, Revision 7; – 004, Revision 6; – 005, Revision 5; and – 006, Revision 6, all dated April 9, 2008



### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Re gion Rules Docket 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 Fort W orth, Texas 76137 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 8024** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. SHERRELL GARY BRINKLEY , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. ( 3:91

- cr - 00131

- GCM

- 1 )

Submitted : April 28, 2014 Decided: May 13, 2014

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Sherrell Gary Brinkley, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Sherrell Gary Brinkley seeks t o appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion , which attacked his convictions and sentence and constituted a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. See United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 206 (4th Cir. 2003). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012)
. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U .S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brinkley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.3 Additionally, we construe Brinkley’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d
at 208. In order to obtain authorization to file a successive
§ 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence that
. . . would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court , that was previously unavailable
. 28 U.S.C. § 22 55(h ) (2012)
. Brinkley ’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to fi le a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISM ISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>        UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ENERGEN CORPORATION FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>            0000277595
<NAME>           ENERGEN CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>     1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                       PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>           319,551
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>         542,308
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>              153,217
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>             27,979
<OTHER-ASSETS>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    1,043,055
<COMMON>                                301
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>           212,926
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                 156,750
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>      369,928
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                367,175
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                  147,018
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                 0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>            0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>         6,605
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                 0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>               0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                          0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>      152,329
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>     1,043,055
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>           129,009
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                  1,272
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>          109,615
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>          110,887
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>              19,394
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                  (8,986)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>       18,574
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>              9,438
<NET-INCOME>                          9,136
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>               0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>         9,136
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>              4,959
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>             6,801
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                1,081
<EPS-BASIC>                             0.3
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0.3


</TABLE>
1999

- Catfish Processing, 07.23.99 [ Text |   PDF ]  Catfish Processing, 06.24.99[ Text | PDF ]Catfish Processing, 05.20.99
[ Text |
 PDF ]
- Catfish Processing, 04.22.99 [ Text |   PDF ]  Catfish Processing, 03.23.99[ Text | PDF ]Catfish Processing, 02.24.99
[ Text |
 PDF ]
- Catfish Processing, 01.21.99 [ Text | PDF ]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO: 22-CV-81294-AMC

DONALD J. TRUMP,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF STRIKING ECF 153

The Plaintiff, through the undersigned counsel and pursuant to the Clerk’s instructions in 

Docket Entry 155 (ECF 155), hereby strikes ECF 153 and will proceed to re-submit the Notice 

of Filing of Plaintiff’s Log of Disputes.

Respectfully,

 /s/ Lindsey Halligan

Florida Bar No. 109481 

511 SE 5th Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

Email: lindseyhalligan@outlook.com

James M. Trusty

Ifrah Law PLLC

1717 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 650

Washington, D.C. 20006

Telephone: (202) 524-4176

Email: jtrusty@ifrahlaw.com

Christopher M. Kise

Chris Kise & Associates, P.A.

201 East Park Avenue, 5th Floor

Tallahassee, FL 32301

Telephone: (850) 270-0566

Email: chris@ckise.net

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 159 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 1 of 3
M. Evan Corcoran 

SILVERMAN|THOMPSON|SLUTKIN|WHITE, 

LLC

400 East Pratt Street – Suite 900 

Baltimore, MD 21202 

Telephone: (410) 385-2225 

Email: ecorcoran@silvermanthompson.com

Counsel for Plaintiff President Donald J. Trump

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 159 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 25, 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed 

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send electronic notification to 

counsel of record. 

 /s/ Lindsey Halligan

Counsel for Donald J. Trump

Case 9:22-cv-81294-AMC Document 159 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 3 of 3