alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1641.19 Notice of proposed removal. ( a ) Before removing an IPA, the OIG shall send the IPA written notice of the proposed removal. The notice shall be sent in a manner that provides evidence of its receipt and shall: ( 1 ) State that removal is being considered;
( 2 ) Identify the reasons for the proposed removal sufficient to put the IPA on notice of the conduct or transaction(s) upon which a removal proceeding is based;
( 3 ) Identify the regulatory provisions governing the removal proceeding; and
( 4 ) State that removal shall be for the years remaining on the existing contract(s) between the IPA and the recipient(s).
( b ) A copy of the notice also shall be sent to the affected recipient(s), if any, which may comment on the proposed action in the time frame set out in § 1641.20.
§ 2506.13 How will the Corporation contract for private collection services? The Corporation uses the services of a private collection contractor when it determines that such use is in the Corporation's best interest. When the Corporation determines that there is a need to contract for private collection services, the Corporation: ( a ) Retains sole authority to: ( 1 ) Resolve any dispute with the debtor regarding the validity of the debt;
( 2 ) Compromise the debt;
( 3 ) Suspend or terminate collection action;
( 4 ) Refer the debt to the DOJ for litigation; and
( 5 ) Take any other action under this part;
( b ) Requires the contractor to comply with the: ( 1 ) Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, to the extent specified in 5 U.S.C. 552a(m);
( 2 ) Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692-1692o); and
( 3 ) Other applicable Federal and State laws pertaining to debt collection practices and applicable regulations of the Corporation in this part;
( c ) Requires the contractor to account accurately and fully for all amounts collected; and
( d ) Requires the contractor to provide to the Corporation, upon request, all data and reports contained in its files related to its collection actions on a debt.
§ 1801.17 Contents of application. ( a ) The Foundation provides a form that must be used as the application.
( b ) Each application must include the following: ( 1 ) A certification of nomination and eligibility signed by the Faculty Representative;
( 2 ) A completed Truman Scholarship Application signed by the nominee;
( 3 ) A policy proposal written by the nominee;
( 4 ) A current official college transcript; and
( 5 ) A letter of nomination from the Faculty Representative and three letters of recommendation.
```

[109th Congress Public Law 258]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ258.109]

[[Page 120 STAT. 661]]

Public Law 109-258
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  2404 Race Street in Jonesboro, Arkansas, as the ``Hattie W. Caraway 
            Station''. <<NOTE: Aug. 2, 2006 -  [H.R. 4456]>> 

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2404 
Race Street in Jonesboro, Arkansas, shall be known and designated as the 
``Hattie W. Caraway Station''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Hattie W. Caraway Station''.

    Approved August 2, 2006.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4456 (S. 2228):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):
            Feb. 8, considered and passed House.
            July 20, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before KING, GASTON , and GERRITY , Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v.
Jonath a n M. GUERR ER O

- DOGGETT Boatswain’s Mate Third Class (E

- 4), U.S. N avy Appellant
No. 201900168

Decided: 5 March 2020 Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary Military Judge : Stephen Reyes Sentence adjudged 22 February 2019 by a general court

- martial convened at Fleet Activities , Yokosuka , Japan, consisting of a military judg e sitting alone

. Sentence approved by the convening authority: reduction to E

- 1 , confinement for five years, and a bad

- conduct discharge. 1 For Appellant: Captain Valonne L. Ehrhardt, USMC

. For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

1 The Convening Authority suspe nded confinement in excess of 42 months and commuted the adjudged dishonorable discharge to a bad

- conduct discharge pursuant to a pretrial ag reement.United States v. Guerr er o
- Doggett , NMCCA No. 201 900168

2 _________________________ This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.

_________________________
PER CURIAM : After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we have det ermined that the approved findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to the

a ppellant’s substantial rights occurred. Articles 59 and 66, U niform Code of Military Justice , 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866. T he findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 42 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 42

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
  United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Food and Nutrition 
   Service relating to ``Application of Bostock v. Clayton County to 
     Program Discrimination Complaint Processing--Policy Update''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 27, 2023

 Mr. Marshall (for himself, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Risch, Mrs. 
Blackburn, Mr. Braun, Mr. Hawley, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Wicker, and Ms. Ernst) 
  introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
  United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Food and Nutrition 
   Service relating to ``Application of Bostock v. Clayton County to 
     Program Discrimination Complaint Processing--Policy Update''.

    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 Food and Nutrition Service relating to 
``Application of Bostock v. Clayton County to Program Discrimination 
Complaint Processing--Policy Update'' (issued May 5, 2022, as a 
memorandum, and a letter of opinion from the Government Accountability 
Office dated June 5, 2023, printed in the Congressional record on June 
7, 2023, on pages S1998-S2000, concluding that such memorandum is a 
rule under the Congressional Review Act), and such rule shall have no 
force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 97 

To establish procedures for the removal of the Architect of the Capitol. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 26, 2023 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mrs. FISCHER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

A BILL 

To establish procedures for the removal of the Architect 

of the Capitol. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REMOVAL OF THE ARCHITECT OF THE CAP4 ITOL. 

5 Section 319 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations 

6 Act, 1990 (2 U.S.C. 1801) is amended— 

7 (1) by redesignating subsection (b) as sub8 section (c); and 

9 (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol10 lowing: 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 97 IS

1 ‘‘(b) REMOVAL.—The Architect of the Capitol may 

2 be removed at any time by— 

3 ‘‘(1) impeachment; or 

4 ‘‘(2) joint resolution of Congress, only for— 

5 ‘‘(A) permanent disability; 

6 ‘‘(B) inefficiency; 

7 ‘‘(C) neglect of duty; 

8 ‘‘(D) malfeasance; or 

9 ‘‘(E) a felony or conduct involving moral 

10 turpitude.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
Original,

No. 5151.

#### Roland Dixon *v.*State.

Argued September 4, 1963.

Decided September 30, 1963.

*124
      *Griffin, Harrington, Brigham & Taylor {Mr. Charles f. Griffin*orally), for the plaintiff.

*William Maynard,*Attorney General and *Alexander f. Kalinski,*Assistant Attorney General *{Mr. Kalinski*orally), for the State.

Kenison, C. J.

It is familiar law, frequently reiterated, that certiorari will not be granted where an adequate remedy is available on appeal. *State*v. *Knowlton,*102 N. H. 221, 223; *Salem Cooperative Bank*v. *Southwick,*102 N. H. 1, 3; *Nashua*v. *Public Utilities Commission, 101 N. H. 503, 506; Waisman*v. *Manchester,*96 N. H. 50, 52. It is true that this rule does not operate with monolithic inflexibility and an exception can be made where there are compelling reasons to do so in the interests of justice. An example is *Cloutier*v. *State Milk Control Board,*92 N. H. 199, 203, where certiorari was allowed to review an administrative order during a war-time emergency after the right of appeal had expired through no fault of the petitioner. *Nashua*v. *Public Utilities Commission, supra,*507.

In the present case the plaintiff concedes that RSA 599:1 (supp) grants a right of appeal to the Superior Court with a trial de novo but contends that remedy is inadequate, unsatisfactory and unconstitutional. This contention was expressly considered and specifically rejected in *Riendeau*v. *Milford Municipal Court,*104 N. H. 33. “We are of the opinion that our present system by which a defendant aggrieved by a sentence in a municipal court can obtain a new trial in the Superior Court and transfer therefrom to this court all questions of law (unless the municipal court in its discretion has transferred such a question directly to this court) meets the requirements of our Constitution.” *Riendeau*v. *Milford Municipal Court, supra, 35.*

The plaintiff claims that the refusal of the municipal court to transfer his exceptions to the admission of evidence and his motion to dismiss is both arbitrary and erroneous. In 1957 it was decided that the transfer and certification of questions of law to the Supreme Court in criminal cases was discretionary with the municipal court. *State*v. *Deane,*101 N. H. 127, 130. In 1962 the decision in *Deane*was reaffirmed in *Riendeau*v. *Milford Municipal Court,*104 N. H. 33, 34. In 1963 these *125cases were followed in *State*v. *Sukoff,*105 N. H. 70. These decisions are controlling in this proceeding. Upon the record, briefs and argument in this case we can find no occasion for the issuance of a writ of certiorari compelling the Rye municipal court to transfer or certify the plaintiff’s exceptions to this court.

*Petition dismissed.*

All concurred.
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of RAINEARTH INC. for the year
ended April 30, 2010, I, Zhu, YongFu, President and Chief Executive Officer of
RainEarth Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant
to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that:

|(1) | such Form 10-K/A for the year ended April 30, 2010, 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 such Form 10-K/A for the year
      ended April 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of RainEarth
  Inc..



|                      | /s/
      Zhu, YongFu                
|--------------------- | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 24, 2010 | Zhu, YongFu                          
|                      | President and Chief Executive Officer

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                         (8,157)
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,280,286
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,637,145
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,055,563
<PP&E>                                       1,243,221
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,698,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,987,021
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       218,583
<OTHER-SE>                                     303,075
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,698,600
<SALES>                                      1,403,120
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,403,120
<CGS>                                        1,051,502
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,297,988
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,983)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             116,501
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,386)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,386)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,386)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)


</TABLE>
Vincent Cogliano/DC/USEPA/US 04/07/2011 06:09 PM To "Mason, Ann" <Ann

_ Mason@americanchemistry.com>

cc Docket ORD@EPA
bcc Subject Re: Cr 6 letter requesting adjustment of peer review

Dear Ann,
Attached you will find NCEA's response to your letter requesting adjustment of the peer review for hexavalent chromium. A paper copy will follow, but I want to be sure that you receive it sooner.
Yours sincerely, Vince
Acting Director, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) National Center for Environmental Assessment U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW (8601P) Washington DC 20460
courier delivery: 2733 S Crystal Dr (N-7663); Arlington VA 22202
tel 703-347-0220; fax 703-347-8689

"Mason, Ann" 03/18/2011 03:31:56 PM Vince Cogliano, Ph.D. Acting Director, Integrate...

From: "Mason, Ann" <Ann

_ Mason@americanchemistry.com> To: Vincent Cogliano/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Docket ORD@EPA Date: 03/18/2011 03:31 PM Subject: Cr 6 letter requesting adjustment of peer review

Vince Cogliano, Ph.D. Acting Director, Integrated Risk Information System National Center for Environmental Assessment USEPA Headquarters Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. M

ail Code: 8601P Washington, DC 20460

RE: Draft IRIS Assessment of Hexavalent Chromium
Dear Dr. Cogliano,
Thank you for your remarks on March 14 to the American Chemistry Council staff about ways that the Agency and industry can improve the IRIS risk assessment process.
You spoke about the Agency’s goal to complete risk assessments in an average of about 23months with flexibility to modify this goal in certain circumstances, including the imminent availability of new scientific data. The attached letter requests an adjustment in the timeline for the ongoing risk assessment of oral exposure to hexavalent chromium (Cr6) and provides the rationale to support this request.
Sincerely,

Ann M. Mason Senior Director Chemical Products and Technology Division 700 2 nd St NE Washington, DC 20002 202.249.6704 Ann

_ mason@americanchemistry.com



### +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This message may contain confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee do not disseminate, distribute or copy this email. Please notify the sender immediately by email if you have received this email by mistake and delete this email from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of email transmission. American Chemistry Council, 700

–2nd Street NE, Washington, DC 20002, www.americanchemistry.com [attachment "2011-mch

_ ACCletter VGogliano. p df" deleted by Vincent Cogliano/DC/USEPA/US]
#### John O’Neill, as President of Branch No. 2, Longshoremen’s Union Protective Association of the Greater New York, Appellant, *v.*West Side Savings Bank, Respondent. Local 791, International Longshoremen’s, Marine and Transport Workers Association, Respondent.

*O’Neill*v. *West Bide Savings Banh,*129 App. Div. 911, appeal dismissed.

(Argued February 10, 1909;

decided March 2, 1909.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 31, 1908, which affirmed an order of Special Term granting a motion for the interpleader of another party defendant.

*John Brooks Leavitt*and *Stuart G. Gibboney*for appellant.

*David McClure*and *Charles Haldane*for West Side Bank, respondent.

*Nathan Waxman*for Local 791, etc., respondent.

Appeal dismissed, with costs ; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Haight, Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock and Chase, JJ.
§ 1225.5 Representation. Any aggrieved party may be represented and assisted in all stages of these procedures by an attorney or representative of his or her own choosing. An aggrieved party must immediately inform the agency if counsel is retained. Attorney fees or other appropriate relief may be awarded in the following circumstances; ( a ) *Informal adjustment of a complaint.* An informal adjustment of a complaint may include an award of attorney fees or other relief deemed appropriate by the EEOP Director. Where the parties agree on an adjustment of the complaint, but cannot agree on whether attorney fees or costs should be awarded, or on their amount, this issue may be appealed to the CEO, or their designee, in the manner detailed in § 1225.11.
( b ) *Final agency decision.* When discrimination is found, the CEO, or their designee, shall advise the complainant that any request for attorney fees or costs must be documented and submitted for review within 20 calendar days after his or her receipt of the final agency decision. The amount of such awards shall be determined under § 1225.11. In the unusual situation in which it is determined not to award attorney fees or other costs to a prevailing complainant, the CEO, or their designee, in his or her final decision shall set forth the specific reasons thereof.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 26 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 26

    Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in 
 approving the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act 
                                of 2022.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 11, 2023

Mr. Vance (for himself, Mr. Budd, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Scott of Florida, 
  and Mr. Rubio) introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
   read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
                          Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in 
 approving the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act 
                                of 2022.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress disapproves 
of the action of the District of Columbia Council described as follows: 
The Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022 
(D.C. Act 24-781), enacted by the Council of the District of Columbia 
on January 19, 2023, and transmitted to Congress pursuant to section 
602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act on January 26, 
2023.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

READY TO WIN, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Civ. No. 22-3282 (RDM)

)

v. )

) Judge Randolph D. Moss

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, )

)

Defendant. )

)

PLAINTIFF READY TO WIN’S NOTICE OF APPEAL

 Notice is hereby given this 14th day of July, 2023, that Plaintiff Ready to Win hereby 

appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from the order 

of this court entered on May 17, 2023, denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction 

[Docket Entry #30]. 

Respectfully submitted, 

July 14, 2023 /s/ Dan Backer

Dan Backer, Esq. (D.C. Bar No. 996641)

Chalmers, Adams, Backer & Kaufman LLC

441 N. Lee Street, Suite 300

Alexandria, VA 22314

(202) 210-5431

dbacker@ChalmersAdams.com

Lilian Rodriguez-Baz, Esq.*

Chief Legal Counsel, Ready for Ron

66 W Flagler Street, Suite 900

Miami, FL 33130

(561) 291-9897

Lilian@ReadyForRon.com

*Admitted pro hac vice

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-03282-RDM Document 34 Filed 07/14/23 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
32.1











IMPLANT
SCIENCES CORPORATION





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 Implant Sciences Corporation. (the
"Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Phillip
C. Thomas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge:





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





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














/s/ Phillip C.
Thomas


Phillip
C. Thomas


President
and Chief Executive Officer


May 20,
2008