alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
120 STAT. 658 PUBLIC LAW 109–255—AUG. 1, 2006

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3934 (S. 2376):

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):

Mar. 7, considered and passed House.

July 20, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 109–255

109th Congress

An Act

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 80 Killian

Road in Massapequa, New York, as the ‘‘Gerard A. Fiorenza Post Office Building’’.

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

80 Killian Road in Massapequa, New York, shall be known and

designated as the ‘‘Gerard A. Fiorenza Post Office Building’’.

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 ‘‘Gerard

A. Fiorenza Post Office Building’’.

Approved August 1, 2006.

Aug. 1, 2006

[H.R. 3934]
§ 2551.92 What are project funding requirements? Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 70542 , Aug. 30, 2024.
( a ) *Is non-CNCS support required?* A CNCS grant may be awarded to fund up to 90 percent of the cost of development and operation of a Senior Companion project. The sponsor is required to contribute at least 10 percent of the total project cost from non-Federal sources or authorized Federal sources.
( b ) *Under what circumstances does CNCS allow less than the 10 percent non-CNCS support?* CNCS may allow exceptions to the 10 percent local support requirement in cases of demonstrated need such as: ( 1 ) Initial difficulties in the development of local funding sources during the first three years of operations; or
( 2 ) An economic downturn, the occurrence of a natural disaster, or similar events in the service area that severely restrict or reduce sources of local funding support; or
( 3 ) The unexpected discontinuation of local support from one or more sources that a project has relied on for a period of years.
( c ) *May CNCS restrict how a sponsor uses locally generated contributions in excess of the 10 percent non-CNCS support required?* Whenever locally generated contributions to Senior Companion projects are in excess of the minimum 10 percent non-CNCS support required, CNCS may not restrict the manner in which such contributions are expended provided such expenditures are consistent with the provisions of the Act.
( d ) *Are program expenditures subject to audit?* All expenditures by the grantee of Federal and non-Federal funds, including expenditures from excess locally generated contributions in support of the grant, are subject to audit by CNCS, its Inspector General, or their authorized agents.
( e ) *May a sponsor pay stipends at rates different than those established by CNCS?* No, a sponsor shall pay stipends at rates established by CNCS.
[64 FR 14115, Mar. 24, 1999, as amended at 75 FR 51415, Aug. 20, 2010; 83 FR 64647, Dec. 17, 2018]
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D14-452 ) ANTHONY SOTO-MALDONADO, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________ )

Opinion filed October 7, 2015.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Steven Scott Stephens, Judge.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,Tallahassee, and Elba Caridad MartinSchomaker, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant.

Bryant R. Camareno of Bryant R. Camareno, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Exposito v. State, 8 91 So. 2d 525,

531 (Fla. 2004) (holding that the State does not have the right to appeal posttrial orders

reducing a charge under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.62 0).- 2 - LaROSE, KHOUZAM, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 04598

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

04598\04598_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 04598\04598_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04598\04598_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04598\04598_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04598\04598_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 04598\04598_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

04598\Certification Statement Plant ID 04598.pdf Plant certification statement

x 04598\Follow-up and resubmittals\1st review_response_email.pdf Follow-up and resubmittal material for the survey.

x 04598\Follow-up and resubmittals\East Bend Part B Section 7.xlsx Follow-up and resubmittal material for the survey.

x 04598\Follow-up and resubmittals\East Bend Part D Section 3.2 Pond A.xlsx Follow-up and resubmittal material for the survey.

x 04598\Follow-up and resubmittals\East_Bend_Followup_04598 Response.pdf Follow-up and resubmittal material for the survey.

x 04598\Follow-up and resubmittals\East_Bend_Followup_04598.doc Follow-up and resubmittal material for the survey.

x 04598\Supplemental Documents\04598_East Bend A5-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04598\Supplemental Documents\04598_EB APGWA Combined Assessment.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04598\Supplemental Documents\04598_Part D 4.1 SPD-A.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04598\Supplemental Documents\East Bend A5-3 and D3-1 rev 1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 04598\04598_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

x 04598\04598_Checklist.xlsx EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

04598\04598_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

04598\04598 (02550)_Cover Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
IIA 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 85 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Marine Fisheries 

Service relating to ‘‘Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 

Listing Endangered and Threatened Species and Designating Critical 

Habitat’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 15, 2024 

Mr. RICKETTS (for himself, Ms. LUMMIS, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. 

DAINES, Mr. LEE, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. RISCH, Mr. ROUNDS, Mrs. BRITT, 

Mr. WICKER, Mr. CRAPO, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. MARSHALL, and Mr. 

HOEVEN) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the National Marine Fisheries Service relating to ‘‘Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing 

Endangered and Threatened Species and Designating 

Critical Habitat’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Na4 tional Marine Fisheries Service relating to ‘‘Endangered 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 85 IS 

1 and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Endangered 

2 and Threatened Species and Designating Critical Habi3 tat’’ (89 Fed. Reg. 24300 (April 5, 2024)), and such rule 

4 shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

## ***CERTIFICATION***

## * *

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of East West Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2009, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Thomas J. Tolda, Executive Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant tosection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledgethat:

 

(a)          the Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(b)         the information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company.

 

 

Date:  May 11,2009

 
|   | /s/  THOMAS J. TOLDA                 |
|--------|--------------------------------------|
|   | Thomas  J. Tolda                     |
|   | Executive  Vice President & |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer             |

 

----
§ 264.82 What expenditures qualify for meeting the Matching Grant FAG amount requirement? To meet the Matching Grant FAG amount requirement, Territories may count: ( a ) Expenditures made with Federal TANF funds pursuant to § 263.11 of this chapter;
( b ) Expenditures made in accordance with §§ 263.2, 263.3, 263.4, and 263.6 of this chapter that are commingled with Federal TANF funds or made under a segregated TANF program;
( c ) Amounts transferred from TANF funds pursuant to section 404(d) of the Act; and
( d ) The Federal and Territorial shares of expenditures made pursuant to the regulations at 45 CFR parts 1355 and 1356 for the Foster Care and Adoption Assistance programs and section 477 of the Act for the Independent Living program.
Case 1:06-cv-01185-HHK Document 1-1 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 1 of 15

Case 1:06-cv-01185-HHK Document 1-1 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 2 of 15

Case 1:06-cv-01185-HHK Document 1-1 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 3 of 15

Case 1:06-cv-01185-HHK Document 1-1 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 4 of 15

Case 1:06-cv-01185-HHK Document 1-1 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 5 of 15

Case 1:06-cv-01185-HHK Document 1-1 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 6 of 15

Case 1:06-cv-01185-HHK Document 1-1 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 7 of 15

Case 1:06-cv-01185-HHK Document 1-1 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 8 of 15

Case 1:06-cv-01185-HHK Document 1-1 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 9 of 15

Case 1:06-cv-01185-HHK Document 1-1 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 10 of 15

Case 1:06-cv-01185-HHK Document 1-1 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 11 of 15

Case 1:06-cv-01185-HHK Document 1-1 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 12 of 15

Case 1:06-cv-01185-HHK Document 1-1 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 13 of 15

Case 1:06-cv-01185-HHK Document 1-1 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 14 of 15

Case 1:06-cv-01185-HHK Document 1-1 Filed 06/28/2006 Page 15 of 15
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 240 (Thursday, December 14, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75270-75271]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9660]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Notice of Extension of Concession Contracts

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Public Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 36 CFR 51.23, public notice is hereby given that 
the National Park Service proposes to extend the following expiring 
concession contracts for a period of up to one year, or until each time 
as a new contract is executed, whichever occurs sooner.

EFFECTIVE DATES: October 1, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jo A. Pendry, Concession Program 
Manager, National Park Service, Washington, DC, 20240, Telephone 202/
513-7156.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All of the listed concession authorizations 
will expire by their terms on or before September 30, 2006. The 
National Park Service has determined that the proposed short-term 
extensions are necessary in order to avoid interruption of visitor 
services and has taken all reasonable and appropriate steps to consider 
alternatives to avoid such interruption.

[[Page 75271]]

Concession

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Contract number           Concessioner name         Park
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GATE019-01......................  Dover Gourmet       Gateway National
                                   Corporation.        Recreation Area.
INDE001-94......................  City Tavern,        Independence
                                   Concepts by         National
                                   Staid, Ltd.         Historical Park.
LARO003-92......................  Colville Tribal     Lake Roosevelt
                                   Enterprise          National
                                   Corporation.        Recreation Area.
STLI003-89......................  ARAMARK Sports and  Statue of Liberty
                                   Entertainment       National
                                   Services, Inc,.     Monument.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: November 30, 2006.
John Wessels,
Acting Assistant Director, Business Services.
[FR Doc. 06-9660 Filed 12-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-53-M
§ 309.170 What statistical and narrative reporting requirements apply to Tribal IV-D programs? ( a ) Tribes and Tribal organizations operating a Tribal IV-D program must submit to OCSE the *Child Support Enforcement Program: Quarterly Report of Collections* (Form OCSE-34). The reports for each of the first three quarters of the funding period are due 45 days after the end of each quarterly reporting period. The report for the fourth quarter is due 90 days after the end of the fourth quarter of each funding period.
( b ) Tribes and Tribal organizations must submit the following information and statistics for Tribal IV-D program activity and caseload for each annual funding period: ( 1 ) Total number of cases and, of the total number of cases, the number that are State or Tribal TANF cases and the number that are non-TANF cases;
( 2 ) Total number of out-of-wedlock births in the previous year and total number of paternities established or acknowledged;
( 3 ) Total number of cases and the total number of cases with a support order;
( 4 ) Total amount of current support due and collected;
( 5 ) Total amount of past-due support owed and total collected;
( 6 ) A narrative report on activities, accomplishments, and progress of the program, including success in reaching the performance targets established by the Tribe or Tribal organization;
( 7 ) Total costs claimed; and
( 8 ) Total amount of laboratory paternity establishment costs.
( c ) A Tribe or Tribal organization must submit Tribal IV-D program statistical and narrative reports required by paragraph (b) of this section no later than 90 days after the end of each funding period.
[69 FR 16672, Mar. 30, 2004, as amended at 85 FR 35208, June 9, 2020; 89 FR 9793, Feb. 12, 2024]
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 04-501.2 

________________________________________________________________________ 

COMPACT OF FREE ASSOCIATION 

Law Enforcement 

 Agreement between 

the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and the MARSHALL ISLANDS 

Signed at Majuro April 30, 2003 

 with 

Agreed Minute 

 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 MARSHALL ISLANDS 

 

 Compact of Free Association: Law Enforcement 

 Agreement signed at Majuro April 30, 2003; 

 Entered into force May 1, 2004; 

 Effective October 21, 1986. 

 With agreed minute.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****National Center for MedicalRehabilitation Research, NICHD, report to the NACHHD Council [electronicresource].**
2001|2006
 
SuDoc Number:HE 20.3352:N 19/

Item Number: 0506-D-02 (online)

CGP system Number:000847714
October 29, 2018
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 27, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40168

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARTIN MARTINEZ-CARRILLO, 

also known as Carlos Alejandro Rivera-Perez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-03-CR-930-ALL

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

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Martin Martinez-Carrillo appeals his guilty-plea conviction

of and sentence for being found in the United States after

previously being deported. Martinez-Carrillo argues that plain

error occurred at sentencing when the Government did not verbally

recommend that he be sentenced at the low end of the guideline

range as required by the plea agreement and instead attempted to

influence the court by repeating negative facts about MartinezCarrillo to the court. 
No. 04-40168

-2-

The Government’s promise to so recommend was satisfied by

the inclusion of the terms of the plea agreement in the

presentence report. See United States v. Reeves, 255 F.3d 208,

210-11 (5th Cir. 2001). Martinez-Carrillo’s argument that the

Government breached the plea agreement by emphasizing his past

involvement with firearms is also unavailing. The prosecutor’s

comments regarding Martinez-Carrillo’s criminal history were in

direct response to the court’s question as to whether there was

any redeeming information about Martinez-Carrillo that it had

overlooked. Such efforts by the Government to provide relevant

factual information to the court at sentencing do not violate a

plea agreement. See United States v. Block, 660 F.2d 1086, 1091

(5th Cir. 1981). Our determination that no plain error occurred

at sentencing is supported by the fact that the Government did

not raise the issue of sentencing Martinez-Carrillo to the high

end of the guideline range but, in fact, it was the court that

raised the issue of a possible upwards departure from the

guideline range. See United States v. Wilder, 15 F.3d 1292, 1301

(5th Cir. 1994). Martinez-Carrillo has not demonstrated plain

error. See Reeves, 255 F.3d at 210.

Martinez-Carrillo also argues that the felony and aggravated

felony provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are

unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000). As Martinez-Carrillo concedes, his argument is

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224
No. 04-40168

-3-

(1998). Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See

Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-90; see also United States v. Dabeit,

231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). The judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
#### § 2552.47 May the cost reimbursements and benefits received by a Foster Grandparent be subject to any tax or charge, be treated as wages or compensation, or affect eligibility to receive assistance from other programs?

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 70544, Aug. 30, 2024.

No. Foster Grandparent's cost reimbursements and benefits are not subject to any tax or charge or treated as wages or compensation for the purposes of unemployment insurance, worker's compensation, temporary disability, retirement, public assistance, or similar benefit payments or minimum wage laws. Cost reimbursements and benefits are not subject to garnishment and do not reduce or eliminate the level of, or eligibility for, assistance or services a Foster Grandparent may be receiving under any governmental program.

[83 FR 64651, Dec. 17, 2018]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES ROBERT BRISCOE III, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

RICHARD MADRID; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-15318 

D.C. No. 1:17-cv-00716-DADSKO 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 14, 2020**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 

James Robert Briscoe III appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

JUL 20 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 19-15318 

The district court properly dismissed Briscoe’s § 1983 claims against 

Madrid because Briscoe failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Madrid was a 

state actor. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although 

pro se pleadings are construed liberally, plaintiff must present factual allegations 

sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); George v. Pac.–CSC Work 

Furlough, 91 F.3d 1227, 1230-32 (9th Cir. 1996) (plaintiff alleging infringement of 

constitutional rights by private parties must show that the infringement constitutes 

state action; explaining approaches for determining state action). Any claims 

arising from Madrid’s conduct described in Briscoe’s complaint arise under state 

law and, absent a cognizable federal claim, are not properly before the federal 

courts. 

The district court properly dismissed Briscoe’s § 1983 claims against the 

Doe defendants because Briscoe failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim. 

See Patel v. Kent Sch. Dist., 648 F.3d 965, 971-72, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining 

“special-relationship” and “state-created danger” exceptions to the general rule that 

a state actor is not liable for an omission or failure to protect); Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 

341-42. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Briscoe further 

leave to amend his complaint because amendment would have been futile. See

Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011)
 3 19-15318 

(setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to 

amend is appropriate where amendment would be futile).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Briscoe’s request to correct the case caption (Docket Entry No. 9) is granted. 

AFFIRMED.