alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1008.21 Petitions for amendment: Time limits for processing. ( a ) *Acknowledgment of receipt.* The acknowledgment of receipt of a petition required by § 1008.20(c) shall be dispatched not later than ten working days after receipt of the petition by the Privacy Act Officer, unless a decision on the petition has been previously dispatched.
( b ) *Decision on petition.* A petition for amendment shall be processed promptly. A determination whether to accept or reject the petition for amendment shall be made within 30 working days after receipt of the petition by the system manager responsible for the system containing the challenged record.
( c ) *Suspension of time limit.* The 30 working day time limit for a decision on a petition shall be suspended if it is necessary to notify the petitioner, pursuant to § 1008.20(d), that additional information in support of the petition is required. Running of the 30 working day time limit shall resume on receipt of the additional information by the system manager responsible for the system containing the challenged record.
( d ) *Extensions of time.* ( 1 ) The 30 working day time limit for a decision on a petition may be extended if the Privacy Act Officer determines that an extension is necessary for one of the following reasons: ( i ) A decision on the petition requires analysis of voluminous record or records;
( ii ) Some or all of the challenged records must be collected from facilities other than the facility at which the Privacy Act Officer is located; or
( iii ) Some or all of the challenged records are of concern to another agency of the Federal Government whose assistance and views are being sought in processing the request.
( 2 ) If the official responsible for making a decision on the petition determines that an extension is necessary, the official shall promptly inform the petitioner of the extension and the date on which a decision is expected to be dispatched.
EXHIBIT
32.02





Section 1350Certification





In
connection with this quarterly report of Sage Fund Limited Partnership (the “Fund”)on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended  September 30, 2009 as filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(this “Report”), I, Yun T. Callahan,Controller and Interim Chief
Financial Officer of Steben & Company, Inc., the General Partner of the
Fundcertify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





1.  This
Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934;and





2.  The
information contained in this Reportfairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Fund.











By:
            /s/ Yun T. Callahan
            
            Date:  November
      16, 2009Yun
      T. CallahanController
      and Interim Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial
    Officer)






E-5
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6005
ROBERT LEON BUCKNER; VICKI LORRAINE WHITE, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and
GERALD D AVIS FULLER; MAURICE LIVELY; ALLEN EDWARD MAPP; JAMES MOYER; KEVIN FARROW; DANIEL GARDNER; PAUL LEO DAVIS; GARY IRELAND; MATHEW PORTER; JOHN TRACY COURTNEY; DELMAR PATRICK; JAMES HARRISON; GEORGE SAMS; CLARENCE PRUITT; MARK MCMILLAN; SHANE MCCALLUM; CLINT MYERS; STEVEN BRADLEY, Plaintiffs, versus WARDEN, Eastern Correctional Institution; WARDEN, Maryland Correctional Institution for Women; COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA95-3476-S) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 16, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.2 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Leon Buckner, Vicki Lorraine White, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal from the district court's order denying relief on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Buckner v. Warden , No. CA-95-3476-S (D. Md. Dec. 6, 1995).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
Case 16-26652 Doc 16 Filed 09/16/16 Entered 09/19/16 09:34:07 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 5184 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 5184

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to establish a floor on 
payments to sole community hospitals located in a non-contiguous State 
       under the hospital outpatient prospective payment system.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 25, 2024

 Mr. Sullivan (for himself, Mr. Schatz, and Ms. Murkowski) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
                               on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to establish a floor on 
payments to sole community hospitals located in a non-contiguous State 
       under the hospital outpatient prospective payment system.

    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 ``Save Our Lone Emergency Services 
Act'' or the ``SOLES Act''.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF SOLE COMMUNITY HOSPITALS LOCATED IN A 
              NONCONTIGUOUS STATE UNDER HOSPITAL OUTPATIENT PROSPECTIVE 
              PAYMENT SYSTEM.

    Section 1833(t)(7)(D) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l) 
is amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
                            ``(iii) Treatment of sole community 
                        hospitals located in a noncontiguous state.--In 
                        the case of a sole community hospital (as 
                        defined in section 1886(d)(5)(D)(iii)) that is 
                        located in a noncontiguous State, for covered 
                        OPD services furnished on or after January 1, 
                        2025, for which the PPS amount is less than the 
                        pre-BBA amount, the amount of payment under 
                        this subsection shall be increased by 94 
                        percent of the amount of such difference.''.
                                 <all>
```
---

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

I, Donald Sharpe, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

|(1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Eden Energy Corp.
      for the period ended June 30, 2009 (the "Reort") 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 Eden Energy Corp.                                                               

Dated: August 13, 2009



| | /s/
      Donald Sharpe      
| | -----------------------------
| | Donald Sharpe                
| | President                    
| | (Principal Executive Officer)
| | Eden Energy Corp.            



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 Eden Energy
Corp. and will be retained by Eden Energy Corp. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
#### § 85.30 Grant selection criteria.

The Director shall give priority consideration to grant proposals that meet the criteria listed in Subsections a-h and in the accompanying chart:

(a) In coastal States that have no survey or plan, proposals to complete such survey and plan;

(b) Proposals for constructing and renovating pumpout and dump stations without an approved plan;

(c) In coastal States, proposals for constructing and renovating pumpout and dump stations in accordance with a coastal State's plan approved under section 5603(c) of the Clean Vessel Act, and for inland States, proposals for constructing and renovating pumpout and dump stations in accordance with an inland State's plan;

(d) Proposals that provide for public/private partnership efforts to develop and operate pumpout and dump stations;

(e) Proposals for innovative ways to increase the availability and use of pumpout and dump stations, e.g., where private parties put in more than the minimum amount;

(f) Proposals that include an education/information component, or the State has an active, ongoing education program;

(g) Proposals that benefit the waters most likely to be affected by the discharge of sewage from vessels, including the waters as defined in the technical guidelines as published in the Federal Register; and,

(h) Proposals in areas with high vessel/pumpout or dump station ratios.

| Criteria | Points | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Coastal state | Inland state |
| a. Do a survey/plan | 50 | |
| b. Construct w/no plan | 10 | 5 |
| c. Construct with plan | 20 | 10 |
| d. Partnership | 10 | 5 |
| e. Innovative approach | 5 | 2 |
| f. Education | 5 | 2 |
| g. Sensitive area | 5 | 2 |
| h. Low pumpout ratio | 5 | 2 |
| Total | | |

[[59 FR 11206](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/59-FR-11206), Mar. 10, 1994, as amended at [62 FR 45348](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/62-FR-45348), Aug. 27, 1997]
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Lawrence Wunderlich, Chief Financial Officer certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of CytoGenix, Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual 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 we 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 annual 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 annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and



c) presented in this annual 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 registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



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; and



6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual 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: April 14, 2005

/s/ Lawrence Wunderlich

Lawrence Wunderlich
Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### § 635.51 Authorized officer.

For the purposes of this subpart, an authorized officer is a person appointed by an ICCAT contracting party to conduct inspections for the purpose of determining compliance with ICCAT conservation and management measures and who possesses identification issued by the authorized officer's national government.

[79 FR 72559, Dec. 8, 2014]
§ 402.40 Definitions. The definitions in § 402.02 are applicable to this subpart. In addition, the following definitions are applicable only to this subpart. ( a ) *Alternative consultation agreement* is the agreement described in § 402.45.
( b ) *Effects determination* is a written determination by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) addressing the effects of a FIFRA action on listed species or critical habitat. The contents of an effects determination will depend on the nature of the action. An effects determination submitted under § 402.46 or § 402.47 shall contain the information described in § 402.14(c) and a summary of the information on which the determination is based, detailing how the FIFRA action affects the listed species or critical habitat. EPA may consider the following additional sections for inclusion in an effects determination: ( 1 ) A conclusion whether or not the FIFRA action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat and a description of any reasonable and prudent alternatives that may be available;
( 2 ) A description of the impact of any anticipated incidental taking of such listed species resulting from the FIFRA action, reasonable and prudent measures considered necessary or appropriate to minimize such impact, and terms and conditions necessary to implement such measures; and
( 3 ) A summary of any information or recommendations from an applicant. An effects determination shall be based on the best scientific and commercial data available.
( c ) *FIFRA action* is an action by EPA to approve, permit or authorize the sale, distribution or use of a pesticide under sections 136-136y of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. 136 *et seq.* (FIFRA). In any consultation under this subpart, EPA shall determine the nature and scope of a FIFRA action.
( d ) *Listed species* is a species listed as endangered or threatened under section 4 of the Act.
( e ) *Partial biological opinion* is the document provided under § 402.47(a), pending the conclusion of consultation under § 402.47(b), stating the opinion of the Service as to whether or not a FIFRA action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of one or more listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of one or more critical habitats, and describing the impact of any anticipated incidental taking of such listed species resulting from the FIFRA action, reasonable and prudent measures considered necessary or appropriate to minimize such impact, and terms and conditions necessary to implement such measures.
( f ) *Service Director* refers to the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
( g ) *Service Representative* is the person or persons designated to participate in advance coordination as provided in this subpart.
[69 FR 47759, Aug. 5, 2004, as amended at 84 FR 45018, Aug. 27, 2019]
§ 85.22 Grant proposals. Grant proposals will consist of a narrative which identifies and describes the following: ( a ) The need within the purposes of the Act (Coastal States with approved plans should indicate how the activities contained in the proposal implements the plan);
( b ) Discrete objective(s) to be accomplished during a specified time period that address the need(s);
( c ) Expected results or benefits from accomplishing the objectives, including the numbers of recreational vessels and people served;
( d ) The approach to be used in meeting the objectives, including specific procedures, schedules, key personnel, cooperators, grant location, innovative approaches, public/private partnerships, education, sensitive waters, public access, and estimated costs;
( e ) Amount and source of matching funds; and,
( f ) Fees for use of facility.
Order filed March 11, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-01069-CV

___________

TERRANCE MANN, EVELYN MANN AND MICHAEL HOOPER, 

Appellant

V.

KENDALL HOME BUILDERS CONSTRUCTION PARTNERS I LTD, 

Appellee

On Appeal from the 113th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 321010113

O R D E R

No reporter’s record has been filed in this case. The official court reporter 

for the 113th District Court informed this court that appellants had not made 

arrangements for payment for the reporter’s record. On January 6, 2014, the clerk 

of this court notified appellants that we would consider and decide those issues that 

do not require a reporter’s record unless appellant, within 15 days of notice, 

provided this court with proof of payment for the record. See Tex. R. App. P.

37.3(c). Appellants filed no reply. 
On January 14, 2014, the clerk’s record was filed. On March 7, 2014, a 

supplemental clerk’s record was filed pursuant to this court’s order.

We order appellants to file a brief in this appeal on or before April 10, 

2014. If appellants fail to comply with this order, the court will dismiss the appeal 

for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
#### §§ 550.171-550.999 [Reserved]
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AngelCiti Entertainment, Inc. (the
"Company") on Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30,
2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), we, George Gutierrez, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
and Dean Ward, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 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.




Dated: February 1, 2006                /s/ George Gutierrez
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       George Gutierrez, Chief Executive Officer


Dated: February 1, 2006                /s/ Dean Ward
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Dean Ward, Chief Financial Officer
Editorial Note on Part 660
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 660 appear at 67 FR 65906, Oct. 29, 2002, 88 FR 81358, Nov. 22, 2023.

§ 660.719 Scientific observers. ( a ) All fishing vessels with permits issued under this subpart and operating in HMS fisheries, including catcher/processors, at-sea processors, and vessels that embark from a port in Washington, Oregon, or California and land catch in another area, may be required to accommodate an NMFS certified observer on board to collect scientific data.
( b ) All vessels with observers on board must comply with the safety regulations at 50 CFR 600.746.
( c ) NMFS shall advise the permit holder or the designated agent of any observer requirement in response to any pre-trip notification in this subpart.
( d ) When NMFS notifies the permit holder or designated agent of the obligation to carry an observer in response to a notification under this subpart or as a condition of an EFP issued under 50 CFR 660.718, the vessel may not engage in the fishery without taking the observer.
( e ) A permit holder must accommodate a NMFS observer assigned under this section. The Regional Administrator's office, and not the observer, will address any concerns raised over accommodations.
( f ) The permit holder, vessel operator, and crew must cooperate with the observer in the performance of the observer's duties, including: ( 1 ) Allowing for the embarking and debarking of the observer.
( 2 ) Allowing the observer access to all areas of the vessel necessary to conduct observer duties.
( 3 ) Allowing the observer access to communications equipment and navigation equipment as necessary to perform observer duties.
( 4 ) Allowing the observer access to VMS units to verify operation, obtain data, and use the communication capabilities of the units for official purposes.
( 5 ) Providing accurate vessel locations by latitude and longitude or loran coordinates, upon request by the observer.
( 6 ) Providing sea turtle, marine mammal, or sea bird specimens as requested.
( 7 ) Notifying the observer in a timely fashion when commercial fishing operations are to begin and end.
( g ) The permit holder, operator, and crew must comply with other terms and conditions to ensure the effective deployment and use of observers that the Regional Administrator imposes by written notice.
( h ) The permit holder must ensure that assigned observers are provided living quarters comparable to crew members and are provided the same meals, snacks, and amenities as are normally provided to other vessel personnel.