alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 309.75 What administrative and management procedures must a Tribe or Tribal organization include in a Tribal IV-D plan? A Tribe or Tribal organization must include in its Tribal IV-D plan the administrative and management provisions contained in this section: ( a ) A description of the structure of the IV-D agency and the distribution of responsibilities within the agency.
( b ) Evidence that all Federal funds and amounts collected by the Tribal IV-D agency are protected against loss. Tribes and Tribal organizations may comply with this paragraph by submitting documentation that establishes that every person who receives, disburses, handles, or has access to or control over funds collected under the Tribal IV-D program is covered by a bond or insurance sufficient to cover all losses.
( c ) Procedures under which notices of support collected, itemized by month of collection, are provided to families receiving services under the Tribal IV-D program at least once a year. In addition, a notice must be provided at any time to either the custodial or noncustodial parent upon request.
( d ) A certification that for each year during which the Tribe or Tribal organization receives or expends funds pursuant to section 455(f) of the Act and this part, it shall comply with the provisions of chapter 75 of Title 31 of the United States Code (the Single Audit Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-502, as amended) and 45 CFR part 75, subpart F.
( e ) Provide that charging fees and recovering costs will not be permitted. ( 1 ) The application fee must be uniformly applied by the Tribe or Tribal organization and must be: ( i ) A flat amount not to exceed $25.00; or
( ii ) An amount based on a fee schedule not to exceed $25.00.
( 2 ) The Tribal IV-D agency may not charge an application fee in an intergovernmental case referred to the Tribal IV-D agency for services under § 309.120.
( 3 ) No application fee may be charged to an individual receiving services under titles IV-A, IV-E foster care maintenance assistance, or XIX (Medicaid) of the Act.
( 4 ) The Tribal IV-D agency must exclude from its quarterly expenditure claims an amount equal to all fees which are collected and costs recovered during the quarter.
[69 FR 16672, Mar. 30, 2004, as amended at 85 FR 35208, June 9, 2020; 89 FR 9793, Feb. 12, 2024]
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20463 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: June 6,2018 

FROM: 

SUBJECT: 

for EC 

Patricia C. Orrock 

Chief Compliance Officer 

Thomas E. Hintermister 

Assistant Staff Director 

Audit Division 

Erin Chlopak 

Acting Associate 

General Counsel for Policy 

Lorenzo Holloway 

Assistant Genera! Counsel 

Compliance Advice 

Jennifer Waldman 0^^ 

Attomey (/ 

Draft Final Audit Report on Brian Higgins for Congress (LRA 1078) 

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed the proposed Draft Final Audit Report 

("DFAR") for Brian Higgins for Congress committee. The DFAR contains two findings: 

Misstatement of Financial Activity (Finding 1), and Receipt of Contributions in Excess of the 

Limit (Finding 2). We concur with the findings. If you have any questions, please contact 

Jennifer Waldman, the attomey assigned to this audit.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed December 29, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-1440

Lower Tribunal No. F14-24088B

________________

Talise Chery,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from 

the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Zachary James, Judge.

Talise Chery, in proper person.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before EMAS, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6668

JERRY ALLEN BAILEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RAINE LOCKE BELL; GRAHAM C. MULLEN; ROBERT CONRAD, JR.; GORDON WIDENHOUSE, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. William L. Osteen, District Judge, sitting by designation. (CA-01-36-V) Submitted: August 23, 2001 Decided: August 30, 2001 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerry Allen Bailey, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jerry Allen Bailey appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his civil rights complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 486 (1994). Finding that Bailey’s informal brief sufficient to present the issues on appeal, we deny Bailey’s pending motion to file a formalbrief. Bailey’s motion to extend the time in which to file a supplemental brief is moot and is denied for that reason. Similarly, we deny Bailey’s motion for counsel and for oral argument becausethe 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 OF ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-Q OF PRIVATE BUSINESS, INC. FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2005**

The undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the undersigned’s best knowledge and belief, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for Private Business Inc. (“Issuer”) for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”):

|   | (a).   | fully complies with the   requirements of secion 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;   and                                           |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                    |
|   | (b).   | the information contained   in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial   condition and results of operations of the Issuer. |

The foregoing cerficication is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

          This Certification is   executed as of August  9, 2005.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

|   | /s/ J. SCOTT CRAIGHEAD  |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   |                         |
|   | J. Scott Craighead      |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |
fea]
x

“
uy
My
Ay
“st
yy
ike

we

AT

95-2600

David Brett Kolker, Esq.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSTON
Office of the General Counsel
999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463



a
el
“|
Ny
M)
Nt
As

mI
ari

ec:

Morgan E. Scott Jr.

Yours truly,

PATRICIA S. CONNOR

By:

Clerk

/s/ Michael Radday
(for Sandra Taylor)

Deputy Clerk


af

Filed: May 5,

1997
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT B
o
No. 95-2600 e
(CA-94-82-L) 2.
LB
Federal Election Commission,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
zea) Christian Action Network, Inc., et al,
4
Defendants - Appellees.
i
my
]

7

un

ORDER
st

The Court amends its opinion filed April 7, 1997, as follows:

On page 8, first paragraph, line 4 -- "Brief for Respondent in

Opposition" is corrected to read "Brief in Opposition."

On page 13, second full paragraph, line 5 -- the parenthetical
("Opp. Mem.") after the word "Fees" is deleted.

On page 15, first paragraph, lines 4-5 -- the lines are
changed to read ".

Appellant's Opposition to Fees at 8,
upon the timing of the communication, see id. at 10
On page 17,

and
"
first paragraph, line 1 after indented quotation

-- "Opp. Mem." is changed to read "Appellant's Opposition to Fees."



On page 28, footnote 13, line 1 -- the spelling is corrected
in "sleight-of-hand."

On page 29, first full paragraph, line 10 -- "FEC’s Opposition
to Certiorari" is changed to read "FEC Opposition to Certiorari."

On page 30, first full paragraph, line 25 -- "Opp. Mem." is
changed to read "Appellant’s Opposition to Fees."

For the Court - By Direction

/s/ Patricia Ss. Connor

= Clerk

ot
w
Wt
Al
a)
o
in
NI


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
4100 EAST MAIN STREET

PATRICIA S$. CONNOR U.S, COURT HOUSE ANNEX TELEPHONE
CLERK RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23219 (804)771-2213
May 5, 1997

Frank M. Northam, Esq.
WEBSTER, CHAMBERLAIN & BEAN
1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Suite 1000

Washington, DC 20006

David William T. Carroll II, Esq.
261 West Johnstown Road
Columbus, OH 43230

Richard Blair Bader, Esq.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
Office of the General Counsel
999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463

ce Lawrence Mark Noble, Esq.

ia FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

Office of the General Counsel

em 999 E Street, NW

u Washington, DC 20463

“ David Brett Kolker, Esq.

a FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

th Office of the General Counsel
' 999 E Street, NW

al Washington, DC 20463

Donald Beaton Verrilli Jxr., Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK

601 13th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005

Stephen Barkai Pershing, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNSON FOUNDATION OF VIRGINIA

6 North 6th Street
Richmond, VA 23219

Re: 95-2600 Federal Election v. Christian Action
CA-94-82-L

Dear Counsel:

Enclosed is a copy of an order filed 5/5/97 in this case.
§ 2553.82 What are the resources and benefits to which a non-CNCS funded project is entitled? Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 70545 , Aug. 30, 2024.
( a ) All technical assistance and materials provided to CNCS funded RSVP volunteer projects; and
( b ) The application of the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 5044 and 5058.
[64 FR 14135, Mar. 24, 1999, as amended at 83 FR 64657, Dec. 17, 2018]
§ 154.230 Submission and posting of Final Justifications for unreasonable rate increases. ( a ) If a health insurance issuer receives from CMS a final determination by CMS or a State that a rate increase is an unreasonable rate increase, and the health insurance issuer declines to implement the rate increase or chooses to implement a lower increase, the health insurance issuer must submit to CMS timely notice that it will not implement the rate increase or that it will implement a lower increase on a form and in the manner prescribed by the Secretary.
( b ) If a health insurance issuer implements a lower increase as described in paragraph (a) of this section and the lower increase does not meet or exceed the applicable threshold under § 154.200, such lower increase is not subject to this part. If the lower increase meets or exceeds the applicable threshold, the health insurance issuer must submit a new Rate Filing Justification under this part.
( c ) If a health insurance issuer implements a rate increase determined by CMS or a State to be unreasonable, within the later of 10 business days after the implementation of such increase or the health insurance issuer's receipt of CMS's final determination that a rate increase is an unreasonable rate increase, the health insurance issuer must: ( 1 ) Submit to CMS a Final Justification in response to CMS's or the State's final determination, as applicable. The information in the Final Justification must be consistent with the information submitted in the Rate Filing Justification supporting the rate increase; and
( 2 ) Prominently post on its Web site the following information on a form and in the manner prescribed by the Secretary: ( i ) The information made available to the public by CMS and described in § 154.215(h).
( ii ) CMS's or the State's final determination and brief explanation described in §§ 154.225(a) and 154.210(b)(2), as applicable; and
( iii ) The health insurance issuer's Final Justification for implementing an increase that has been determined to be unreasonable by CMS or the State, as applicable.
( 3 ) The health insurance issuer must continue to make this information available to the public on its Web site for at least three years.
( d ) CMS will post all Final Justifications on the CMS Web site. This information will remain available to the public on the CMS Web site for three years.
[76 FR 29985, May 23, 2011, as amended at 78 FR 13441, Feb. 27, 2013; 81 FR 12336, Mar. 8, 2016]
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 03-605.1 

________________________________________________________________________ 

MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE 

Isle of Man 

 Agreement between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and the UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN 

AND NORTHERN IRELAND 

Applying to the Treaty of January 6, 1994 

Effected by Exchange of Notes at 

London June 2 and 5, 2003 

 

 
 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.” 
UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND 

Mutual Legal Assistance: Isle of Man 

 Agreement applying to the treaty of January 6, 1994. 

 Effected by exchange of notes at London 

 June 2 and 5, 2003; 

 Entered into force June 5, 2003.
**Exhibit 32.1**

April 2, 2007

Via EDGAR

Securities and Exchange CommissionJudiciary Plaza450 Fifth Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20549

Re: Certificationpursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In connection with the Annual Report of MV Oil Trust(the “Trust”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee ofthe Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

(1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.

The abovecertification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part ofthe Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.
|        |     | THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY, N.A. |
|--------|----------|------------------------------------------|
|   |     | Trustee for MV Oil Trust                 |
|   |     |                                     |
|   |     | By:                                      | /s/ Mike Ulrich |
|   |     |                                     | Mike Ulrich |
|   | * * | * *                                 | *Vice President* |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

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 First Place Financial Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Steven R. Lewis, Chief Executive Officer 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 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, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |                                      
|------------------ |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: May 11, 2009 |  | /s/ Steven R. Lewis                  
|                   |  | Steven R. Lewis                      
|                   |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
§ 73a.735-201 Control activity employees formerly associated with organizations subject to FDA regulation. ( a ) For a period of 1 year after FDA appointment, or appointment to the Food and Drug Division, Office of the General Counsel, a control activity employee who was employed in a regulated organization within 1 year before FDA employment shall not participate in any regulatory action before FDA that involves the former employer organization. Exceptions may be authorized only under paragraph (e) of this section.
( b ) A control activity employee who was previously employed in a regulated organization shall not participate in any regulatory action before FDA in which the employee had participated personally and substantially in behalf of the former employer organization, e.g., drug investigations/applications, food additive petitions, matters dealing with compliance in areas of radiation-producing products or medical devices. Exceptions may be authorized only under paragraph (e) of this section.
( c ) Employment in a regulated organization includes contractual relationships, e.g., attorneys who may have represented an FDA-regulated firm or industry or an association of such firms and individuals who may have served a firm, industry or association in a consultant capacity.
( d ) Within 30 days after assignment to a control activity position, an employee shall submit to his supervisor detailed information concerning former industry employers, and dates and substance of involvement in such regulatory matters as may be subject to the prohibition in paragraph (b) of this action.
( e ) The Commissioner may grant individual exceptions to paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section whenever he determines that strict application would not be in the best interests of the United States. A memorandum of any exception granted shall be filed for public inspection in the Public Records and Documents Center, Food and Drug Administration, Room 4-68, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Md. 20857, within 10 days after the Commissioner's decision. The memorandum shall include the employee's name, title, grade, summary of official duties, prior pertinent industry involvement, a brief description of the specific regulatory action in which the employee has been permitted to participate, and a statement explaining why such strict application of the subpart would not be in the best interests of the United States.
§ 410.1703 Information used as evidence to conduct age determinations. ( a ) ORR considers multiple forms of evidence in making age determinations, and determinations are made based upon a totality of evidence.
( b ) ORR may consider information or documentation to make an age determination, including but not limited to: ( 1 ) If there is no original birth certificate, certified copy, or photocopy or facsimile copy of a birth certificate acceptable to ORR, consulting with the consulate or embassy of the individual's country of birth to verify the validity of the birth certificate presented.
( 2 ) Authentic government-issued documents issued to the bearer.
( 3 ) Other documentation, such as baptismal certificates, school records, and medical records, which indicate an individual's date of birth.
( 4 ) Sworn affidavits from parents or other relatives as to the individual's age or birth date.
( 5 ) Statements provided by the individual regarding the individual's age or birth date.
( 6 ) Statements from parents or legal guardians.
( 7 ) Statements from other persons apprehended with the individual.
( 8 ) Medical age assessments, which should not be used as a sole determining factor but only in concert with other factors. If an individual's estimated probability of being 18 years or older is 75 percent or greater according to a medical age assessment, and the totality of the evidence indicates that the individual is 18 years old or older, ORR must determine that the individual is 18 years old or older. The 75 percent probability threshold applies to all medical methods and approaches identified by the medical community as appropriate methods for assessing age. Ambiguous, debatable, or borderline forensic examination results are resolved in favor of finding the individual is a child.
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).

KN/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JORGE SANTOS PEREZ; et al.,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-72863

Agency Nos. A029-378-516

 A096-165-947

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 11, 2010** 

Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Jorge Santos Perez and his son, both natives and citizens of Guatemala,

petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum. 

FILED

JAN 21 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
KN/Research 2 07-72863

Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial

evidence, INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992), we deny the

petition for review.

Perez contends that he will be persecuted by either the guerillas or the

military if he returns to Guatemala. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s

finding that Perez failed to establish that a reasonable person in his circumstances

would fear persecution upon return to Guatemala. See Li v. INS, 92 F.3d 985, 987

(9th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, Perez’s asylum claim fails.

Perez does not does challenge the denial of his withholding of removal

claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues

not supported by argument are deemed waived).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
§ 681.13 At the hearing, what rights do the parties have? Each party has the right to: ( a ) Be represented by a representative;
( b ) Request a pre-hearing conference and participate in any conference held by the ALJ;
( c ) Conduct discovery;
( d ) Agree to stipulations of fact or law which will be made a part of the record;
( e ) Present evidence relevant to the issues at the hearing;
( f ) Present and cross-examine witnesses;
( g ) Present arguments at the hearing as permitted by the ALJ; and
( h ) Submit written briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law after the hearing, as permitted by the ALJ.
#### John J. Landers, *Respondent, v.*The Frank Street Methodist Episcopal Church of Rochester, *Appellant*.

Judgment affirmed. Mem. by

Smith, P. J.;

Dwight, J., not sitting.