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

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 504

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require, in weighing the

factors taken into account in the evaluation of applications for the

designation of empowerment zones in urban areas under subchapter

U of such Code, that the unemployment rate and poverty rate of an

applicant together be given half the weight.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 2, 1999

Mr. TRAFICANT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require,

in weighing the factors taken into account in the evaluation of applications for the designation of empowerment

zones in urban areas under subchapter U of such Code,

that the unemployment rate and poverty rate of an applicant together be given half the weight.

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

•HR 504 IH

1 SECTION 1. CONSIDERATION OF UNEMPLOYMENT AND

2 POVERTY RATES IN EVALUATING APPLICA3 TIONS FOR DESIGNATION OF EMPOWERMENT

4 ZONES IN URBAN AREAS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (c) of section 1392 of

6 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding

7 at the end the following:

8 ‘‘In weighing the factors taken into account in the evalua9 tion of an application for the designation of an empower10 ment zone in an urban area, the unemployment rate and

11 the poverty rate of the nominated area shall together be

12 given half the weight.’’.

13 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

14 subsection (a) shall take effect with respect to applications

15 submitted after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### § 118.20 Obtaining information.

Persons desiring information concerning the marking of bridges shall address their inquiry to the District Commander having jurisdiction over the area concerned, or to the Commandant.
§ 3021.2 Applicability. ( a ) The rules in this part apply when: ( 1 ) The Postal Service decides to close or consolidate a post office, and
( 2 ) A patron of that post office appeals the closing or consolidation.
( b ) Subparts A through D to part 3010 of this chapter apply to appeals of post office closings or consolidations.
( c ) Answers to motions filed by the Postal Service are due within 10 days.
[77 FR 6679, Feb. 9, 2012, as amended at 85 FR 9655, Feb. 19, 2020]
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-2796

___________ Tom Lingenfelter, Individually; Phil * Florence, Individually and as * Beneficiary in Empire Paper Company * Profit Sharing Plan; Diane S. Blodgett, * Individually and as a Vested * Beneficiary; T.G. Morgan, Inc., * Defined Benefit Pension Plan, * * Appeal from the United States Appellants, * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. v. * [UNPUBLISHED] * John Stoebner; Lapp, Libra, Thomson, * Stoebner & Pusch, Chtd.; Gordon Conn; * Charles Webber; Faegre & Benson, * LLP; Kalina, Wills, Gisvold & Clark, * P.L.L.P.; Larson, Allen, Weishair & * Co., LLP, in their Individual Capacities; * H.S.B.C. Bank USA, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: April 17, 2006 Filed: July 20, 2006

___________ Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.1 The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
2 Lingenfelter v. Stoebner , No. 03-CV-5544, 2005 WL 1225950 (D. Minn. May 23, 2005).
3 We exercise our discretion not to impose on our own motion damages or costs upon appellants under Fed. R. App. P. 38. -2- This long-running litigation, which stre tches back to the early 1990s, was brought to an end by the district court’s 1 May 24, 2005, judgment, entered upon the court’s May 23, 2005, order, dismissing the complaint. Having considered the parties’ arguments, we conclude that, for the reasons set forth in the district court’s comprehensive, well-reasoned opinion, 2the judgment should be, and it hereby is, affirmed. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B. 3

______________________________
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Adams Resources & Energy, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 (the "Report"),
I, Richard B. Abshire, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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) of
          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/ Richard B. Abshire
-------------------------------
Richard B. Abshire
Chief Financial Officer
November 13, 2003

                                      -35-
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10064 Conference Calendar

JERRY DALE DIEMER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus DALLAS COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT ET AL., Defendants, JIM BOWLES, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:94-CV-1284

- - - - - - - - - - August 21, 1996 Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jerry Dale Diemer, #676401, appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Dallas County Sheriff Jim Bowles, in Diemer’s civil rights complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Diemer argues that the district court erred by granting Bowles’ motionNo. 96-10064 - 2 - and dismissing his complaint. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we AFFIRM for essentially the same reasons set forth by the district court. Diemer v. Dallas County Sheriff’s Dept et al. , No. 3:94-CV-1284 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 1995). AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 14 (Friday, January 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 3451]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1443]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Report No. 2379]


Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification of Action in 
Rulemaking Proceedings

January 12, 2000.
    Petitions for Reconsideration have been filed in the Commission's 
rulemaking proceedings listed in this Public Notice and published 
pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of these documents 
are available for viewing and copying in Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, 
SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractor, ITS, Inc. (202) 857-3800. Oppositions to these petitions 
must be filed by February 7, 2000. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the 
Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be 
filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions has expired.
    Subject: Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service (CC Docket 
No. 96-45).
    Forward Looking Mechanism for High Cost Support for Non-Rural LECs 
(CC Docket No. 97-160).
    Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (CC Docket No. 96-98).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 11.
    Subject: Celtronix Telemetry, Inc. (WT Docket No. 98-169, RM-8951).
    Application of Bidding Credits in the Interactive Video and Data 
Services Auction.
    Amendment of Part 95 of the Commission's Rules to Provide 
Flexibility in the 218-219 MHz Service.
    Number of Petitions Filed: 6.


Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-1443 Filed 1-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                              55
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   67,079
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    362,971
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               437,899
<PP&E>                                         849,373
<DEPRECIATION>                                 481,187
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 879,982
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          388,701
<BONDS>                                        231,335
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     38,275
<COMMON>                                            30
<OTHER-SE>                                     188,529
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   879,982
<SALES>                                        385,807
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               385,807
<CGS>                                         (20,614)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  137,366
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,503
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,177
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                239,938
<INCOME-TAX>                                        52
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            239,886
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   239,886
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-61868-CIV-SINGHAL

MARIA MERCEDES ANGARITA DE BREWER, 

individually and as Next Friend to her Minor 

Child, J.S.B.A., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General of 

the United States, in his official capacity, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE has come before the Court upon a sua sponte examination of the 

record. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires service of summons and complaint 

to be perfected upon Defendant within 90 days after the filing of the complaint. Plaintiff

filed this action on October 5, 2022, and to date, there is no indication in the court file that 

Defendants have been served with the summons and Complaint. It is therefore

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that on or before January 12, 2023, Plaintiff shall 

perfect service upon the Defendant or show cause why this action should not be 

dismissed for failure to perfect service of process. Failure to file proof of service or show 

good cause by January 12, 2023, will result in a dismissal without prejudice and without 

further notice.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 6th day of 

January 2023.

Case 0:22-cv-61868-AHS Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2023 Page 1 of 2
Copy furnished counsel via CM/ECF

Case 0:22-cv-61868-AHS Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/09/2023 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                            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 Annual Report of Eagle Bancorp (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter J. Johnson,
Senior Vice President and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/ Peter J. Johnson

Peter J. Johnson
Sr. VP/Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
September 13, 2002
Editorial Note on Part 67
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 67 appear by USCG-2001-10714, 69 FR 24983, 24984, May 5, 2004.

§ 67.20-10 Sound signal. ( a ) The owner of a Class “A” structure shall: ( 1 ) Install a sound signal that has a rated range of at least 2 miles; and,
( 2 ) Operate the sound signal when the visibility in any direction is less than 5 miles.
( b ) The District Commander may waive any requirements in paragraph (a) of this section if he or she finds that a structure is so close to other structures and so enveloped by the sound signals on other structures that it is not a hazard to navigation.
[CGD 72-74R, 37 FR 13513, July 8, 1972, as amended by USCG-2001-10714, 69 FR 24984, May 5, 2004]
§ 262.3 Information. Data combined with the knowledge of its context and having the potential to serve a Postal Service use. ( a ) *Sensitive information.* Information which has been identified by the USPS as *restricted* or *critical.* ( 1 ) *Critical information.* Information that must be available in order that the Postal Service effectively perform its mission and meet legally assigned responsibilities; and for which special precautions are taken to ensure its accuracy, relevance, timeliness and completeness. This information, if lost, would cause significant financial loss, inconvenience or delay in performance of the USPS mission.
( 2 ) *Restricted information.* Information that has limitations placed upon both its access within the Postal Service and disclosure outside the Postal Service consistent with the Privacy and Freedom of Information Acts. ( i ) *Restricted mandatory.* Information that has limitations upon its internal access and that may be disclosed *only* in accordance with an Executive Order, public law, or other Federal statute and their supporting postal regulations.
( ii ) *Restricted discretionary.* Information that has limitations upon its internal access and that *may* be withheld from external disclosure solely in accordance with postal regulations, consistent with the Freedom of Information Act.
( b ) *Classified information (National Security).* Information about the national defense and foreign relations of the United States that has been determined under Executive Order 12356 to require protection against unauthorized disclosure and has been so designated.
§ 3011.200 General requirements for submitting non-public materials and seeking non-public treatment. ( a ) Whenever providing non-public materials to the Commission, the submitter shall concomitantly provide the following: An application for non-public treatment that clearly identifies all non-public materials and describes the circumstances causing them to be submitted to the Commission in accordance with § 3011.201, a redacted (public) version of the non-public materials in accordance with § 3011.202, and an unredacted (sealed) version of the non-public materials in accordance with § 3011.203.
( b ) Before submitting non-public materials to the Commission, if the submitter has reason to believe that any person other than the submitter has a proprietary interest in the information contained within the non-public materials, the submitter shall inform each affected person of the nature and scope of the submission to the Commission, including the pertinent docket designation(s) (to the extent practicable) and that the affected person may address any confidentiality concerns directly with the Commission.
[83 FR 31281, July 3, 2018, as amended at 85 FR 9641, Feb. 19, 2020]
#### § 245.15 Delegation.

District Engineers may undertake removal without prior approval of the Chief of Engineers provided the cost does not exceed $100,000. Removals estimated to cost above $100,000 require advance approval of the Director of Civil Works.
§ 3010.300 Applicability. The Commission shall conduct proceedings on the record with the opportunity for a hearing subject to this subpart whenever: ( a ) The Commission determines that a complaint filed under part 3022 of this chapter raises one or more material issues of fact or law in accordance with § 3022.30 of this chapter and a proceeding on the record with the opportunity for a hearing is necessary;
( b ) The Commission determines that the streamlined procedures in part 3020 of this chapter applicable to a Postal Service request to change the nature of postal services which will generally affect service on a nationwide or substantially nationwide basis are not appropriate; or
( c ) The Commission in the exercise of its discretion determines it is appropriate.
§ 208.25 Pensacola Dam and Reservoir, Grand (Neosho) River, Okla. The representative of the agency charged with the operation of the Pensacola Dam, referred to in this section as the Representative shall operate the dam and reservoir in the interest of flood control as follows: ( a ) Whenever the pool stage exceeds elevation 745 at the dam, the discharge facilities shall be operated under the direction of the District Engineer, Engineer Department at Large, in charge of the locality, so as to reduce as much as practicable the flood damage below the reservoir and to limit the pool stage to elevation 755 at the dam.
( b ) The District Engineer will advise the Representative when inflow rates are anticipated which will raise the pool above elevation 745 at the dam. The District Engineer will also advise the Representative of essential increase in the flood control storage capacity of the reservoir which should be provided by drawing the pool down below elevation 745 at the dam in order to obtain maximum flood control benefits, with the provision that the suggested reduction in power storage shall at no time exceed the replacement volume of flow then in sight in the streams above the reservoir.
( c ) The Representative shall furnish the District Engineer, daily, a report showing the elevation of the reservoir pool and the tailwater, number of gates in operation, spillway and turbine releases, evaporation, storage, reservoir inflow, and precipitation in inches as shown by Agency gages. One reading shall be shown for each day with additional readings of releases for all changes in spillway gate operation, and with readings of all items except evaporation three times daily when the District Engineer advises the Representative that flood conditions are imminent. By agreement between the Representative and the District Engineer, any of the foregoing information may be furnished by telephone and may, if agreed upon, be omitted from the report. Whenever the pool is above elevation 745 at the dam the Representative shall submit additional reports by telegraph or telephone as directed by the District Engineer, with a report to be furnished immediately whenever the pool rises above elevation 745 at the dam.
( d ) The District Engineer will furnish the Representative with all available information and detailed instructions for operation of the reservoir in the interest of flood control during an emergency condition when communications between the dam and the District Office are broken. In the event that the District Engineer or his authorized representative cannot be reached by telephone, telegraph or by other means during a flood emergency, these instructions will govern. The provisions of paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section will govern at all times except during such an emergency.
( e ) Elevations stated in this section are referred to Pensacola datum which is 1.07 feet below mean sea level.
[10 FR 15044, Dec. 14, 1945]
#### § 82.7 Sidelights for unmanned barges.

An unmanned barge being towed may use the exception of COLREGS Rule 24(h). However, this exception only applies to the vertical sector requirements.

[CGD 94-011, 63 FR 5731, Feb. 4, 1998]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 112 (Friday, June 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 36717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14623]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under The Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

    Notice is hereby given that on May 23, 2000, a proposed Consent 
Decree in United States v. Riverside Plating Company, Inc. et al., 
Civil Action No. 00-C-0320 was lodged with the United States District 
court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
    This consent decree represents a settlement of claims brought 
against Riverside Plating Company, Inc. (``Riverside Plating'') and 
Richard J. Bouziane under Section 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607, for 
the recovery of costs incurred by the United States in responding to 
the release or threatened release of hazardous substances at and from 
the Riverside Plating Superfund Site in Janesville, Wisconsin. John C. 
Bouziane, Michael J. Bouziane, Bouziane Enterprises, Bouziane Plating, 
the Ruth Bouziane Trust, the Bouziane Family Trust and the Estate of 
Ruth Bouziane are also parties to the consent decree.
    Under the proposed settlement, Riverside Plating and Richard 
Bouziane will, inter alia, pay the United States $50,000 in partial 
reimbursement of response costs incurred by the United States in 
connection with the Riverside Plating Superfund Site.
    The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent 
Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, 
Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20044-7611, and should refer to 
United States v. Riverside Plating Company, Inc. et al, D.J. Ref. 90-
11-2-06129/2.
    The Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United 
States Attorney, 660 West Washington Ave., Suite 200, Madison, 
Wisconsin, and at U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois. A copy of the Consent Decree may also be obtained by 
mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of 
Justice, Washington, D.C. 20044-7611. In requesting a copy, please 
enclose a check in the amount of $7.50 (25 cents per page reproduction 
cost) payable to the Consent Decree Library.

Joel M. Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 00-14623 Filed 6-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M