alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 160.410 Affirmative defenses. ( a ) The Secretary may not: ( 1 ) Prior to February 18, 2011, impose a civil money penalty on a covered entity or business associate for an act that violates an administrative simplification provision if the covered entity or business associate establishes that the violation is punishable under 42 U.S.C. 1320d-6.
( 2 ) On or after February 18, 2011, impose a civil money penalty on a covered entity or business associate for an act that violates an administrative simplification provision if the covered entity or business associate establishes that a penalty has been imposed under 42 U.S.C. 1320d-6 with respect to such act.
( b ) For violations occurring prior to February 18, 2009, the Secretary may not impose a civil money penalty on a covered entity for a violation if the covered entity establishes that an affirmative defense exists with respect to the violation, including the following: ( 1 ) The covered entity establishes, to the satisfaction of the Secretary, that it did not have knowledge of the violation, determined in accordance with the Federal common law of agency, and by exercising reasonable diligence, would not have known that the violation occurred; or
( 2 ) The violation is— ( i ) Due to circumstances that would make it unreasonable for the covered entity, despite the exercise of ordinary business care and prudence, to comply with the administrative simplification provision violated and is not due to willful neglect; and
( ii ) Corrected during either: ( A ) The 30-day period beginning on the first date the covered entity liable for the penalty knew, or by exercising reasonable diligence would have known, that the violation occurred; or
( B ) Such additional period as the Secretary determines to be appropriate based on the nature and extent of the failure to comply.
( c ) For violations occurring on or after February 18, 2009, the Secretary may not impose a civil money penalty on a covered entity or business associate for a violation if the covered entity or business associate establishes to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the violation is— ( 1 ) Not due to willful neglect; and
( 2 ) Corrected during either: ( i ) The 30-day period beginning on the first date the covered entity or business associate liable for the penalty knew, or, by exercising reasonable diligence, would have known that the violation occurred; or
( ii ) Such additional period as the Secretary determines to be appropriate based on the nature and extent of the failure to comply.
[78 FR 5692, Jan. 25, 2013]
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 217 (Thursday, November 9, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 65783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9145]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Intent To Grant an Exclusive License of a U.S. Government-Owned 
Patent

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(I)(i), 
announcement is made of the intent to grant an exclusive, royalty-
bearing, revocable license to U.S. patent number 6,878,100 issued April 
12, 2005 entitled ``Force Sensing Treadmill,'' to Advanced Mechanical 
Technology, Inc. with its principal place of business at 176 Waltham 
Street, Watertown, MA 02472-4800.

ADDRESSES: Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, 
ATTN: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR-JA, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick, 
Frederick, MD 21702-5012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth 
Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-7808. For licensing issues, Dr. Paul 
Mele, Office of Research & Technology Assessment, (301) 619-6664, both 
at telefax (301) 619-5034.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Anyone wishing to object to the grant of 
this license can file written objections along with supporting 
evidence, if any, 15 days from the date of this publication. Written 
objections are to be filed with the Command Judge Advocate (see 
ADDRESSES).

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 06-9145 Filed 11-8-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 755 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force from entering into an agreement 

that would provide for or permit the joint use of Homestead Air Reserve 

Base, Homestead, Florida, by the Air Force and civil aircraft. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 9, 2023 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself and Mr. SCOTT of Florida) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force from entering 

into an agreement that would provide for or permit the 

joint use of Homestead Air Reserve Base, Homestead, 

Florida, by the Air Force and civil aircraft. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Critical 

5 Ecosystems and Military Readiness in Florida Act of 

6 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 755 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON JOINT USE OF HOMESTEAD AIR 

2 RESERVE BASE WITH CIVIL AVIATION. 

3 The Secretary of the Air Force may not enter into 

4 an agreement that would provide for or permit the joint 

5 use of Homestead Air Reserve Base, Homestead, Florida, 

6 by the Air Force and civil aircraft. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 22 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 22

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of 
 Education relating to ``Waivers and Modifications of Federal Student 
                                Loans''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 27, 2023

 Mr. Cassidy (for himself, Mr. Barrasso, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Boozman, 
 Mr. Braun, Mr. Budd, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Cramer, 
    Mr. Crapo, Mr. Daines, Ms. Ernst, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Graham, Mr. 
  Grassley, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Hawley, Mr. Hoeven, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. 
Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Lee, Ms. Lummis, Mr. Marshall, 
Mr. McConnell, Mr. Moran, Mr. Mullin, Mr. Risch, Mr. Romney, Mr. Rubio, 
  Mr. Schmitt, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Scott of South Carolina, Mr. 
  Thune, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Tuberville, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Young, and Mrs. 
Britt) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice 
and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
    United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of 
 Education relating to ``Waivers and Modifications of Federal Student 
                                Loans''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to ``Waivers and 
Modifications of Federal Student Loans'' (including the website 
announcement entitled ``One-Time Federal Student Loan Debt Relief'' and 
the Federal Register document entitled ``Federal Student Aid Programs 
(Federal Perkins Loan Program, Federal Family Education Loan Program, 
and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program)'' 87 Fed. Reg. 61512 
(Oct. 12, 2022)), and printed in the Congressional Record on March 22, 
2023, on pages S903-S906, along with a letter of opinion from the 
Government Accountability Office dated March 17, 2023, that the Waivers 
and Modifications are a rule under the Congressional Review Act, and 
such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
§ 1322.35 Flexibilities under a major disaster declaration. ( a ) If a State or Indian Tribe requests and receives a major disaster declaration under the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. 5121-5207), the Tribal organization or Hawaiian Native grantee may use disaster relief flexibilities as set forth in this section to provide disaster relief services within its approved service area for areas of the State or Indian Tribe where the specific major disaster declaration is authorized and where older Native Americans and family caregivers are affected.
( b ) Flexibilities a Tribal organization or Hawaiian Native grantee may exercise under a major disaster declaration include allowing use of any portion of the funds of any open grant awards under Title VI of the Act for disaster relief services for older individuals and family caregivers.
( c ) Disaster relief services may include any allowable services under the Act to eligible older Native Americans or family caregivers during the period covered by the major disaster declaration.
( d ) Expenditures of funds under disaster relief flexibilities must be reported separately from the grant where funding was expended. A Tribal organization or Hawaiian Native grantee may expend funds from any source within open grant awards under Title VI of the Act but must track the source of all expenditures.
( e ) A Tribal organization or Hawaiian Native grantee must have policies and procedures outlining eligibility, use, and reporting of services and funds provided under these flexibilities.
( f ) A Tribal organization or Hawaiian Native grantee may only make obligations exercising this flexibility during the major disaster declaration incident period or 90 days thereafter or with prior approval from the Assistant Secretary for Aging.
COMPLETE APV SYSTEM

WWW.YUNEEC.COM

DO NOT FLY OVER CROWDS!

DO NOT FLY NEAR AIRPORTS!

MAX 8000ft

THE MAXIMUM FLYING ALTITUDE FOR THIS AIRCRAFT 

IS 8000FT ABOVE SEA LEVEL! 

100 ̊

SAFE FLIGHT REQUIRES A MINIMUM CLEARANCE OF 100 ̊

FROM SURROUNDING BUILDINGS BEFORE LIFT-OFF!

KEEP CLEAR OF THE SPINNING PROPELLERS!
§ 4.15 Safety belts. ( a ) Each operator and passenger occupying any seating position of a motor vehicle in a park area will have the safety belt or child restraint system properly fastened at all times when the vehicle is in motion. The safety belt and child restraint system will conform to applicable United States Department of Transportation standards.
( b ) This section does not apply to an occupant in a seat that was not originally equipped by the manufacturer with a safety belt nor does it apply to a person who can demonstrate that a medical condition prevents restraint by a safety belt or other occupant restraining device.
[62 FR 61633, Nov. 19, 1997]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6174

In Re: DAVID WILBERT SHANTON, SR.,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(CA-01-81-3, CR-89-250)

Submitted: February 5, 2002 Decided: February 13, 2002

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Wilbert Shanton, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

David Wilbert Shanton, Sr., has filed a petition for a writ of

mandamus in this court to compel the district court to expedite its

consideration of his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2001), and to find that the court’s referral of the

§ 2254 petition to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation was error. The granting of a writ of mandamus is a drastic

remedy to be used in extraordinary circumstances. In re Beard, 811

F.2d 818, 826-27 (4th Cir. 1987). A petitioner must show that he

has a clear right to the relief sought, that the respondent has a

clear duty to perform the act requested by petitioner, and that

there is no other adequate remedy available. In re First Fed. Sav.

& Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Shanton has

failed to make the requisite showing for such extraordinary relief.

Our review of the district court docket sheet discloses that there

has been no undue delay in considering Shanton’s § 2254 petition by

the district court and magistrate judge. Although we grant

Shanton’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his petition

for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

PETITION DENIED
§ 1356.40 Adoption assistance program: Administrative requirements to implement section 473 of the Act. ( a ) To implement the adoption assistance program provisions of the title IV-E plan and to be eligible for Federal financial participation in adoption assistance payments under this part, the title IV-E agency must meet the requirements of this section and section 471(a), applicable provisions of section 473, and section 475(3) of the Act.
( b ) The adoption assistance agreement for payments pursuant to section 473(a)(2) must meet the requirements of section 475(3) of the Act and must: ( 1 ) Be signed and in effect at the time of or prior to the final decree of adoption. A copy of the signed agreement must be given to each party; and
( 2 ) Specify its duration; and
( 3 ) Specify the nature and amount of any payment, services and assistance to be provided under such agreement and, for purposes of eligibility under title XIX of the Act, specify that the child is eligible for Medicaid services; and
( 4 ) Specify, with respect to agreements entered into on or after October 1, 1983, that the agreement shall remain in effect regardless of the place of residence of the adoptive parents at any given time.
( c ) There must be no income eligibility requirement (means test) for the prospective adoptive parent(s) in determining eligibility for adoption assistance payments.
( d ) In the event an adoptive family moves from one place of residence to another, the family may apply for social services on behalf of the adoptive child in the new place of residence. If a needed service(s) specified in the adoption assistance agreement is not available in the new place of residence, the title IV-E agency making the original adoption assistance payment remains financially responsible for providing the specified service(s).
( e ) A title IV-E agency may make an adoption assistance agreement with adopting parent(s) who reside in another State or a Tribal service area. If so, all provisions of this section apply.
( f ) The title IV-E agency must actively seek ways to promote the adoption assistance program.
[48 FR 23116, May 23, 1983, as amended at 53 FR 50220, Dec. 14, 1988; 77 FR 949, Jan. 6, 2012]
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA CHRISTINA GARZONSAAVEDRO, a.k.a. Maria Cristina Garzon

Saavedra, a.k.a. Maria Garzon-Saavedro,

a.k.a. Maria Cristina Garzon-Saavedro,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-73416

Agency No. A095-811-187

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 17, 2012** 

Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Maria Christina Garzon-Saavedro, a native and citizen of Colombia,

petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

FILED

JAN 24 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-73416

dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review. 

In her opening brief, Garzon-Saavedro waived any challenge to the BIA’s

dispositive determination that her appeal was untimely. See Martinez-Serrano v.

INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues that are not specifically raised and

argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
§ 158.110 Reporting requirements related to premiums and expenditures. ( a ) *General requirements.* For each MLR reporting year, an issuer must submit to the Secretary a report which complies with the requirements of this part, concerning premium revenue and expenses related to the group and individual health insurance coverage that it issued. Reporting requirements of this part that apply to expenses incurred directly by the issuer also apply to expenses for functions outsourced to or services provided by other entities retained by the issuer.
( b ) *Timing and form of report.* The report for each of the 2011, 2012, and 2013 MLR reporting years must be submitted to the Secretary by June 1 of the year following the end of an MLR reporting year, on a form and in the manner prescribed by the Secretary. Beginning with the 2014 MLR reporting year, the report for each MLR reporting year must be submitted to the Secretary by July 31 of the year following the end of an MLR reporting year, on a form and in the manner prescribed by the Secretary.
( c ) *Transfer of Business.* Issuers that purchase a line or block of business from another issuer during an MLR reporting year are responsible for submitting the information and reports required by this part for the assumed business, including for that part of the MLR reporting year that was prior to the purchase.
[75 FR 74921, Dec. 1, 2010, as amended at 76 FR 76592, Dec. 7, 2011; 78 FR 15539, Mar. 11, 2013; 85 FR 29262, May 14, 2020]
#### Charles J. Johnson, appellee, v. William G. Merten; United Surety Company of Baltimore, appellant.

Filed January 30, 1914.

No. 17,368.

Rulings in *Cortright Metal Roofing Co. v. Merten, ante,*p. 164, followed.

Appeal from the district court for Lancaster county: Albert J. Cornish, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*Francis A.*Brogan, for appellant.

*8. L. Geisthardt, contra.*

Rose, J.

This is an action on the bond of a public contractor who had agreed for the consideration of $77,872 to construct for the state of Nebraska at the asylum for the insane at Norfolk a new fireproof wing, a cottage, and a nonfireproof storehouse. William G. Merten was the contractor. According to specific terms of the building contract, it obligated the contractor, under the penalty expressed in a bond thereto attached, “to furnish all labor, materials, machinery, appliances or things necessary to construct, equip and fully build, and complete ready for use,” the buildings mentioned. The improvements were to conform to plans and specifications attached to and made a part of the building contract. In the penal sum of $25,000, with the state of Nebraska named as obligee, the bond on which the action is based, if enforceable, required the contractor as principal and the United Surety Company of Baltimore as surety to faithfully perform the obligations imposed upon the contractor by the building contract. Plaintiff furnished materials for the buildings and the contractor violated his agreement to pay for them. This is a suit on the bond for the price of the materials so furnished! Two defenses were interposed: (1) The bond was never mutually executed by the state and the surety. (2) Plaintiff was not entitled to the protection of *175the bond. Upon a trial of the issues in the district court, without the intervention of a jury, plaintiff recovered a judgment for the full amount of his claim, amounting to 13,803.97, April 26, 1911.

For the reasons stated in *Cortright Metal Roofing Co. v.*Merten, *ante,*p. 164, the judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 102 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 102

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish and 
 Wildlife Service relating to ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
  Plants; Endangered Species Status for the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 11 (legislative day, July 10), 2024

Mr. Cruz (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Lee, and Ms. Lummis) introduced 
 the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to 
             the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish and 
 Wildlife Service relating to ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
  Plants; Endangered Species Status for the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating 
to ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species 
Status for the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard'' (89 Fed. Reg. 43748 (May 20, 
2024)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, William Grossholz of Lions Gate Lighting
Corp., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | the annual report on Form 10-K of Lions Gate Lighting
      Corp. for the period ended February 28, 2010 (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 Lions Gate Lighting Corp.                                                                 

Dated: April 26, 2010

| | /s/
      William Grossholz                                
| | -----------------------------------------------------------
| | William Grossholz                                          
| | Secretary and Treasurer                                    
| | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal
      Accounting
| | Officer)                                                   

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 Lions Gate
Lighting Corp. and will be retained by Lions Gate Lighting Corp. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---