alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 284.20 What information will we use to determine the child poverty rate in each State? ( a ) *General.* We will determine the child poverty rate in each State based on estimates from either the Census Bureau or the State, as described in this section. Each year we will use these data to determine the change in the State's child poverty rate over a two-year period, beginning with calendar years 1996 and 1997.
( b ) *Estimates from the Census Bureau.* ( 1 ) Annually, we will obtain from the Census Bureau and provide to each State the estimate of the number and percentage of children in poverty in each State. The estimate will be based on the Census Bureau methodology.
( 2 ) In 2000, and annually thereafter, we will determine for each State, at the 90-percent confidence level, the percentage change in the child poverty rate and provide this information to the State. The determination of percentage change in 2000 will cover the change between calendar years 1996 and 1997.
( c ) *Estimates from the State.* ( 1 ) As an alternative to the Census Bureau estimates provided to the State under paragraph (b) of this section, the State may provide to us data on child poverty in the State derived from an independent source.
( 2 ) If the State provides data on child poverty as described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, it must: ( i ) Provide an estimate of the child poverty rate for the same two calendar years as the Census Bureau estimates provided to the State under paragraph (b)(2) of this section;
( ii ) Provide the change in the child poverty rate for the applicable two-calendar-year period at the 90-percent confidence level;
( iii ) Use the official definition of poverty as used by the Census Bureau; and
( iv ) Describe the methodology used to develop its independent estimates, the sources of data and methodology for collecting the data, any known problems associated with making estimates of this type, the estimate of the standard error, and the power of the sample to detect a five percent change in the child poverty rate.
( 3 ) The State must submit its independent estimates and supporting information within 45 days of the date the State receives the Census Bureau estimates as described in paragraph (b) of this section.
( d ) *Determination of the State's child poverty rate.* ( 1 ) If we determine that the State's independent estimates of the child poverty rate are more reliable than the Census Bureau estimates, we will accept these estimates.
( 2 ) For all other States, we will determine the State's child poverty rate based on the Census Bureau's estimates.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7914

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FEMI FAMOSA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-03-517; CA-04-1185) Submitted: February 9, 2005 Decided: February 17, 2005 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Femi Famosa, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Charles Erickson, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Femi Famosa seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Famosa has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED
§ 156.100 State selection of benchmark plan for plan years beginning prior to January 1, 2020. For plan years beginning before January 1, 2020, each State may identify a base-benchmark plan according to the selection criteria described below: ( a ) *State selection of base-benchmark plan.* The options from which a base-benchmark plan may be selected by the State are the following: ( 1 ) *Small group market health plan.* The largest health plan by enrollment in any of the three largest small group insurance products by enrollment, as defined in § 159.110 of this subpart, in the State's small group market as defined in § 155.20 of this subchapter.
( 2 ) *State employee health benefit plan.* Any of the largest three employee health benefit plan options by enrollment offered and generally available to State employees in the State involved.
( 3 ) *FEHBP plan.* Any of the largest three national Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) plan options by aggregate enrollment that is offered to all health-benefits-eligible federal employees under 5 USC 8903.
( 4 ) *HMO.* The coverage plan with the largest insured commercial non-Medicaid enrollment offered by a health maintenance organization operating in the State.
( b ) *EHB-benchmark selection standards.* In order to become an EHB-benchmark plan as defined in § 156.20 of this subchapter, a state-selected base-benchmark plan must meet the requirements for coverage of benefits and limits described in § 156.110 of this subpart; and
( c ) *Default base-benchmark plan.* If a State does not make a selection using the process described in this section, the default base-benchmark plan will be the largest plan by enrollment in the largest product by enrollment in the State's small group market.
( d ) *Applicability date:* For plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2020, § 156.111 applies in place of this section.
[78 FR 12866, Feb. 25, 2013, as amended at 80 FR 10871, Feb. 27, 2015; 83 FR 17068, Apr. 17, 2018]
Petitioner and Appellant, 

v. 

TIFFANEY GRIGG, 

Respondent and Appellee. 

Stnie of Montana 

ORDER 

Upon consideration of Appellant's motion for extension of time, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant has until August 8, 2022, within which 

to file his opening brief., 

DATED this (-1 day of June, 2022. 

For the Court, 

Chief Justice
§ 205.32 Procedures for issuance of replacement checks. ( a ) *State plan requirements.* A State plan under title IV-A of the Social Security Act shall provide that ( 1 ) procedures are in effect to ensure that no undue delays occur in issuing a replacement check; and
( 2 ) when applicable, prior to the issuance of a replacement check, the State agency must: ( i ) Issue a stop payment order on the original AFDC check through appropriate banking procedures; and
( ii ) Require recipients to execute a signed statement attesting to the nonreceipt, loss, or theft of the original FDC check. However, if obtaining such a statement from the recipient will cause the issuance of the check to be unduly delayed, the statement may be obtained within a reasonable time after the check is issued.
( b ) *State option.* A State plan may provide that as a condition for issuance of a replacement check, a recipient is required to report a lost or stolen AFDC check to the police or other appropriate authorities. Under this provision, the State agency may require that the recipient verify that a report was made to the police or other appropriate authorities and, if so, the agency will establish procedures for such verification.
[51 FR 9203, Mar. 18, 1986]
ORIGINALINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFMONTANADA22-0225PETERGRIGG,PetitionerandAppellant,v.TIFFANEYGRIGG,RespondentandAppellee.LJUN232022BOVVerlGreenwoodClerl<SupremeCourtStnieofMontanaORDERUponconsiderationofAppellant'smotionforextensionoftime,ITISHEREBYORDEREDthatAppellanthasuntilAugust8,2022,withinwhichtofilehisopeningbrief.,DATEDthis(-1dayofJune,2022.FortheCourt,ChiefJustice06/24/2022Case Number: DA 22-0225
§ 287.120 What work activities may be provided under the NEW Program? ( a ) The Tribe will determine what work activities are to be provided.
( b ) Examples of allowable activities include, but are not limited to: Educational activities, alternative education, post secondary education, job readiness activity, job search, job skills training, training and employment activities, job development and placement, on-the-job training (OJT), employer work incentives related to OJT, community work experience, innovative approaches with the private sector, pre/post employment services, job retention services, unsubsidized employment, subsidized public or private sector employment, community service programs, entrepreneurial training, management training, job creation activities, economic development leading to job creation, and traditional subsistence activities.
#### ■ William M. Cavanaugh, Appellant, *v.*Alfred Brumme, Respondent.

*Cavanaugh*v. *Brumme,*124 App. Div. 921, affirmed.

(Argued November 16, 1909;

decided November 80, 1909.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 11, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to recover money alleged to have been paid by plaintiff to defendant’s use in accordance with the import of an alleged written instrument.

*Patrick II. Loftus*and *Frederick Stewart*for appellant.

*John F. Brush*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Werner, Willard Bartlett and Chase, JJ.
1.
    
    Jiangsu Linyang Solarfun Co., Ltd. (PRC)2.
    
    Linyang Solar Power Investment Holding Ltd. (BVI)3.
    
    Shanghai Linyang Solar Technology Co., Ltd. (PRC)4.
    
    Jiangsu Yangguang Solar Technology Co., Ltd. (PRC)5.
    
    Solarfun Power U.S.A. Inc. (USA)6.
    
    Jiangsu Linyang Solarfun Engineering Research and Development Center Co., Ltd. (PRC)7.
    
    Solarfun Power Hong Kong Limited (Hong Kong)8.
    
    Solarfun Power Deutschland GmbH (Germany)
USCA Case #21-5081 Document #1943511 Filed: 04/19/2022 Page 1 of 1 

United States Court of Appeals 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

No. 21-5081 September Term, 2021

FILED ON: APRIL 19, 2022 

CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER AND CATHERINE HINCKLEY KELLEY, 

APPELLANTS 

v. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ET AL., 

APPELLEES 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Columbia 

(No. 1:19-cv-02336) 

Before: ROGERS and WALKER, Circuit Judges, and EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge 

J U D G M E N T 

This cause came on to be heard on the record on appeal from the United States District 

Court for the District of Columbia and was argued by counsel. On consideration thereof, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the decision of the District Court appealed from in this 

cause be reversed and the case be remanded for further proceedings, in accordance with the opinion 

of the court filed herein this date. 

Per Curiam 

FOR THE COURT: 

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/ 

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk 

Date: April 19, 2022 

Opinion for the court filed by Senior Circuit Judge Edwards.
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 Current Report of Mobile Reach International, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 8-K/A as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael J. Hewitt, Chief
Executive Office of the Company, 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) of
15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Action 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.

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                            /s/  Michael J. Hewitt
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Michael J. Hewitt
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                                 March 12th, 2004
§ 1174.24 Protective orders. ( a ) A party, prospective witness, or deponent may file a motion for a protective order that seeks to limit the availability or disclosure of evidence with respect to discovery sought by an opposing party or with respect to the hearing.
( b ) In issuing a protective order, the ALJ may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: ( 1 ) That the parties shall not have discovery;
( 2 ) That the parties shall have discovery only on specified terms and conditions;
( 3 ) That the parties shall have discovery only through a method of discovery other than requested;
( 4 ) That the parties shall not inquire into certain matters, or that the parties shall limit the scope of discovery to certain matters;
( 5 ) That the parties shall conduct discovery with no one present except persons designated by the ALJ;
( 6 ) That the parties shall seal the contents of the discovery;
( 7 ) That a sealed deposition shall be opened only by order of the ALJ;
( 8 ) That a trade secret or other confidential research, development, commercial information, or facts pertaining to any criminal investigation, proceeding, or other administrative investigation shall not be disclosed or shall be disclosed only in a designated way; or
( 9 ) That the parties shall simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as the ALJ directs.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1599

DAVID WAYNE HALL, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

J. KEVIN O'BRIEN; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, M.J. Garbis,

District Judges. (CA-95-3285-WMN)

Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 2, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Wayne Hall, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Kaye A. Allison, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1988).

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissing

this civil action filed under the Freedom of Information Act.* 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. Hall v. O'Brien, No. CA-95-3285-WMN (D. Md. Apr.

16, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion for counsel and 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
---

---

Exhibit 32.2

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

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Defense Industries International, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending
March 31, 2009 as filed with the SEC on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Tsippy Moldovan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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.

|By: /s/ Tsippy Moldovan

Tsippy MoldovanChief Financial Officer |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

June 25, 2009



---

---
#### People *ex rel.*Keteltas v. Cady.

*Mandamus*— *to compel official acts—when it will not lie.*

Chap. 580, Laws of 1873, declares valid certain assessments for local improvements in New York city. Under Laws 1858, chap. 578, the’clerk of arrears of the city is required to furnish bills of arrears, and the act declares his receipt countersigned by the comptroller conclusive evidence of their payment. K., against whose property certain of the assessments declared valid were charged, after the passage of the act, demanded of the clerk of arrears a bill of each of his assessments with interest calculated from the date of such passage, and upon his refusal to furnish them applied for a mandamus to compel said clerk to perform such acts, and also to receive the amount of the bills, give receipts therefor, and mark in his record of arrears that the assessments had been paid. *Meld,*that a mandamus was properly refused. *People*v. *Green,*64 Barb. 162.

Appeal from an order made at the special term refusing a mandamus. The application was made on behalf of Eugene Keteltas against Artemas S. Cady, clerk of arrears of taxes and assessments in the city of New York.

*Neville & Andrews,*for appellant.

*B. Delafield Smith,*for respondent.

Beady, J.

The head-note states fully the only point passed upon in the opinion, which is not believed important for publication.

*Order affirmed.*
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 2677]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-962]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0797; FRL-9619-5]
RIN 2060-AQ-92

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Primary 
Aluminum Reduction Plants; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing that the period for providing public 
comments on the December 6, 2011, proposed rule titled, ``National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Primary Aluminum 
Reduction Plants'' is being extended for 12 days.

DATES: Comments. The public comment period for the proposed rule 
published December 6, 2011, (76 FR 76260) is being extended for 12 days 
to February 1, 2012, in order to provide the public additional time to 
submit comments and supporting information.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Written comments on the proposed rule may be 
submitted to EPA electronically, by mail, by facsimile or through hand 
delivery/courier. Please refer to the proposal for the addresses and 
detailed instructions.
    Docket. Publicly available documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 
3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading 
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
    World Wide Web. The EPA Web site for this rulemaking is at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/alum/alumpg.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Putney, Metals and Inorganic 
Chemicals Group (D243-02), Sector Policies and Programs Division, 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
Telephone number: (919) 541-2016; Fax number (919) 541-3207; Email 
address: putney.david@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comment Period

    Due to requests received from industry to extend the public comment 
period, the EPA is extending the public comment period for an 
additional 12 days. Therefore, the public comment period will end on 
February 1, 2012, rather than January 20, 2012.

How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The EPA has established the official public docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2011-0797. The EPA has also developed a Web site for the proposed 
rulemaking at the addresses given above.

    Dated: January 12, 2012.
Gina McCarthy,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-962 Filed 1-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
---

---

Exhibit 32.2

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

In
connection with Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report of Defense Industries International, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the
SEC on the date hereof (the Report), I, Tsippy Moldovan, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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/ Tsippy Moldovan
Tsippy MoldovanChief Financial OfficerMay 16, 2008 |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 



---

---