alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20463 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: 

FROM: 

JAHISM 

Patricia C. Orrock 

Chief Compliance Officer 

Thomas E. Hintermister 

Assistant Staff Director 

Lisa J. Stevenson 

Deputy General Counsel - Law 

Lorenzo Holloway —-rAssistant General Counsel 

Compliance Advice 

Joshua Blume 

Attorney 

SUBJECT: Interim Audit Report - Oklahoma Leadership Council (LRA 1011) 

The Office of General Counsel has reviewed the proposed Interim Audit Report on the 

Oklahoma Leadership Council. We concur with the findings in the Interim Audit Report 

(Finding 1 - Misstatement of Financial Activity; Finding 2 - Misstatement of Financial Activity 

- Levin Fund; Finding 3 - Recordkeeping for Employees; and Finding 4 - Contributions from 

Unregistered Political Organizations). If you have any questions, please contact Joshua Blume, 

the attorney assigned to this audit.' 

' The Office of General Counsel recommends that the Commission consider this document in Executive 

Session because the Commission may eventually decide to pursue an investigation of matters contained in the 

proposed Report. 11 C.F.R. § 2.4(a) and (b)(6).
§ 164.410 Notification by a business associate. ( a ) *Standard* — ( 1 ) *General rule.* A business associate shall, following the discovery of a breach of unsecured protected health information, notify the covered entity of such breach.
( 2 ) *Breaches treated as discovered.* For purposes of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a breach shall be treated as discovered by a business associate as of the first day on which such breach is known to the business associate or, by exercising reasonable diligence, would have been known to the business associate. A business associate shall be deemed to have knowledge of a breach if the breach is known, or by exercising reasonable diligence would have been known, to any person, other than the person committing the breach, who is an employee, officer, or other agent of the business associate (determined in accordance with the Federal common law of agency).
( b ) *Implementation specifications: Timeliness of notification.* Except as provided in § 164.412, a business associate shall provide the notification required by paragraph (a) of this section without unreasonable delay and in no case later than 60 calendar days after discovery of a breach.
( c ) *Implementation specifications: Content of notification.* ( 1 ) The notification required by paragraph (a) of this section shall include, to the extent possible, the identification of each individual whose unsecured protected health information has been, or is reasonably believed by the business associate to have been, accessed, acquired, used, or disclosed during the breach.
( 2 ) A business associate shall provide the covered entity with any other available information that the covered entity is required to include in notification to the individual under § 164.404(c) at the time of the notification required by paragraph (a) of this section or promptly thereafter as information becomes available.
[74 FR 42767, Aug. 24, 2009, as amended at 78 FR 5695, Jan. 25, 2013]
June 11,2014 

Federal Election Commission 

Audit Division 

Martin Favin 

999 E Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20463 

To Whom it May Concern: I 

The 2012 Democratic National Convention Committee, Inc. C'DNCC") has received the 

"Preliminary Audit Report of the Audit Division on the 2012 Democratic Natioiuil Convention 

Committee, Inc." The DNCC requests no adjustments and has no further conunents. 

I 

Thank you for the Audit Division's work and guidance during our audit. 

Sincerely, 

Qoth^ 

Judith L. Corley (/ 

Chief Counsel 

2012 Democratic National 

Convention Committee, Inc.
§ 75.351 Subrecipient and contractor determinations. The non-Federal entity may concurrently receive Federal awards as a recipient, a subrecipient, and a contractor, depending on the substance of its agreements with HHS awarding agencies and pass-through entities. Therefore, a pass-through entity must make case-by-case determinations whether each agreement it makes for the disbursement of Federal program funds casts the party receiving the funds in the role of a subrecipient or a contractor. The HHS awarding agency may supply and require recipients to comply with additional guidance to support these determinations provided such guidance does not conflict with this section. ( a ) *Subrecipients.* A subaward is for the purpose of carrying out a portion of a Federal award and creates a Federal assistance relationship with the subrecipient. See § 75.2 *Subaward.* Characteristics which support the classification of the non-Federal entity as a subrecipient include when the non-Federal entity: ( 1 ) Determines who is eligible to receive what Federal assistance;
( 2 ) Has its performance measured in relation to whether objectives of a Federal program were met;
( 3 ) Has responsibility for programmatic decision making;
( 4 ) Is responsible for adherence to applicable Federal program requirements specified in the Federal award; and
( 5 ) In accordance with its agreement, uses the Federal funds to carry out a program for a public purpose specified in authorizing statute, as opposed to providing goods or services for the benefit of the pass-through entity.
( b ) *Contractors.* A contract is for the purpose of obtaining goods and services for the non-Federal entity's own use and creates a procurement relationship with the contractor. See § 75.2 *Contract.* Characteristics indicative of a procurement relationship between the non-Federal entity and a contractor are when the contractor: ( 1 ) Provides the goods and services within normal business operations;
( 2 ) Provides similar goods or services to many different purchasers;
( 3 ) Normally operates in a competitive environment;
( 4 ) Provides goods or services that are ancillary to the operation of the Federal program; and
( 5 ) Is not subject to compliance requirements of the Federal program as a result of the agreement, though similar requirements may apply for other reasons.
( c ) *Use of judgment in making determination.* In determining whether an agreement between a pass-through entity and another non-Federal entity casts the latter as a subrecipient or a contractor, the substance of the relationship is more important than the form of the agreement. All of the characteristics listed above may not be present in all cases, and the pass-through entity must use judgment in classifying each agreement as a subaward or a procurement contract.
[79 FR 75889, Dec. 19, 2014, as amended at 81 FR 3016, Jan. 20, 2016]
----

|   | (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 results of operations of 21st Century Holding Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:  /s/ Peter J. Prygelski, III                                                    |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Peter J. Prygelski, III, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
|                                                                                          |
| May 16, 2011                                                                                  |

----
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10258-10259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1046]


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

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Meeting of the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice 
and Procedure

AGENCY: Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, Judicial 
Conference of the United States.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure will hold a 
two day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation but not 
participation.

DATES: June 11-12, 2007.

[[Page 10259]]

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Thurgood Marshall Federal Judicial Building, Mecham 
Conference Center, One Columbus Circle, NE., Washington, DC 20544.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules 
Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States 
Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

    Dated: February 27, 2007.
John K. Rabiej,
Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.
[FR Doc. 07-1046 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-M
§ 79.8 Service of complaint. ( a ) Service of a complaint must be made by certified or registered mail or by delivery in any manner authorized by Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Service is complete upon receipt.
( b ) Proof of service, stating the name and address of the person on whom the complaint was served, and the manner and date of service, may be made by— ( 1 ) Affidavit of the individual serving the complaint by delivery;
( 2 ) A United States Postal Service return receipt card acknowledging receipt; or
( 3 ) Written acknowledgment of receipt by the defendant or his or her representative.
§ 705.9 Disclosure of records to a person other than the individual to whom the record pertains. ( a ) Any individual who desires to have his or her record disclosed to or mailed to a third person may authorize that person to act as his or her agent for that specific purpose. The authorization shall be in writing, signed by the individual, and notarized. The agent shall also submit proof of his or her own identity as provided in § 705.4.
( b ) The parent of any minor individual or the legal guardian of any individual who has been declared by a court to be incompetent, due to physical or mental incapacity, may act on behalf of that individual in any matter covered by this part. A parent or guardian who desires to act on behalf of such an individual shall present suitable evidence of parentage or guardianship by birth certificate, copy of a court order or similar documents, and proof of the individual's identity as provided in § 705.4.
( c ) An individual to whom a record is to be disclosed, in person, pursuant to this part may have a person of his or her own choosing accompany the individual when the record is disclosed.
§ 800.403 Fraud and abuse. ( a ) *Program required.* An MSP issuer must conduct a program to assess its vulnerability to fraud and abuse as well as to address such vulnerabilities.
( b ) *Fraud detection system.* An MSP issuer must operate a system designed to detect and eliminate fraud and abuse by employees and subcontractors of the MSP issuer, by providers furnishing goods or services to MSP enrollees, and by MSP enrollees.
( c ) *Submission of information.* An MSP issuer must provide to OPM such information or assistance as may be necessary for the agency to carry out the duties and responsibilities, including those of the Office of Inspector General as specified in sections 4 and 6 of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.). An MSP issuer must provide any requested information in the form, manner, and timeline prescribed by OPM.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7986

ELIZABETH MARIE RUSHING FLOYD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DAVID A. BROWN, an individual; ROBERT

POTTER, an individual; RICHARD VOORHEES, an

individual; THOMAS WIDMAN, an individual,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. H. Brent McKnight,

District Judge. (CA-03-554-MCK)

Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 9, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elizabeth Marie Rushing Floyd, Appellant Pro Se. James Michael

Sullivan, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Elizabeth Marie Rushing Floyd appeals the district

court’s order denying her motion to vacate the court’s September

24, 2004, order. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Floyd v. Brown, No. CA-03-554-MCK (W.D.N.C.

Nov. 22, 2004). 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.

AFFIRMED
U.S. District Court

District of Columbia (Washington, DC)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:14ícví00148íRJ

PUBLIC CITIZEN et al v. FEDERAL ELECTIONCOMMISSIONAssigned to: Judge Richard J. Leon

Case in other court: USCA, 14í05199

Cause: 02:431 Fed. Election Commission: Failure Enforce C

Date Filed: 01/31/20Jury Demand: NoneNature of Suit: 890 OActionsJurisdiction: U.S. Go

Date Filed # Docket Text

12/04/2015 MINUTE ORDER granting 42 Crossroads Grassroots Policy Stra

Direct the Federal Election Commission to Complete the Adminishereby ORDERED that this motion is GRANTED. It is further Odefendant Federal Election Commission shall file a complete admincluding the First General Counsel's Report and accompanying FAnalysis circulated to the Federal Election Commission on or abocertify the same. It is further ORDERED that the parties shall subscheduling order to govern summary judgment briefing within 30 this Order. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 1(Entered: 12/04/2015)
**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 annual report of MSTI Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-KSB for the year ended April 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-KSB”), I, Frank T.
      Matarazzo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
      The
      Form 10-KSB 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 Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated: July 30,
              2007
            /s/
                Frank T. Matarazzo
              Frank
                T. Matarazzo
              Chief
                Executive Officer




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





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-KSB
      pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-B and Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter
      63
      of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part
      of
      the Form 10-KSB for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended, and is not 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.
#### DYAS *v.*THE STATE.

The venue for a prosecution, under the act of 1903, Jor cheating and swindling (Acts 1903, p. 90), is in the county where the advance is received. It follows that where the accusation lays the venue in one county, and the evidence discloses the advance to have been received in another county, the evidence does not support the verdict.

Submitted October 15,

Decided November 7, 1906.

Accusation of misdemeanor. Before Judge Crisp. City court of Americus. July 10, 1906.

*Q. G. Webb*and *G. B. Ellis,*for plaintiff in error.

*Allen Fort, Jr., solicitor,*contra.

Atkinson, J.

In the city court of Americus the defendant was convicted under an accusation charging him with the offense of cheating and swindling, under the act of 1903 (Acts 1903, p. 90). The venue was laid in Sumter county. Hpon the trial, the evidence disclosed that while the agreement to labor was made in the *557county of Sumter, where the labor was intended to be performed, tbe written contract to labor was executed in tbe county of Lee; that tbe application for tbe advance was made in tbe county of Lee, and tbe advance was actually made and received in that county. Obtaining the money with tbe intention not to perform tbe contract, where loss to tbe hirer results, is tbe gist of tbe offense. That was tbe criminal act of the defendant which damaged tbe prosecutor. This having been accomplished in Lee county fixed tbe venue of tbe offense there, and tbe court in Sumter county was without jurisdiction. A new trial should have been granted.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7276

ROY DICKERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DOCTOR BALOCH; DOCTOR UMESI; NURSE DAVIS; NURSE BAGAODA, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-565) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 23, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roy Dickerson, Appellant Pro Se. William Dennis Worley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Roy Dickerson appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. 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. See Dickerson v. Baloch , No. CA-97-565 (E.D.N.C. July 28, 1998). We dispense with 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
#### § 617.13 Hearings, decisions, post-termination proceedings.

Procedures prescribed in 45 CFR 611.9 and 611.10 for NSF enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 shall apply also for NSF enforcement of this part. At the conclusion of any action taken under § 617.12, NSF, shall remind both parties of the right to judicial review established by 42 U.S.C. 6105.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1817 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1817

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 116 North West Street in Somerville, Tennessee, as the ``John S. 
                     Wilder Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. JOHN S. WILDER POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 116 North West Street in Somerville, Tennessee, shall be 
known and designated as the ``John S. Wilder Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``John S. 
Wilder Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 4, 2009.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1817

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 116 North West Street in Somerville, Tennessee, as the ``John S. 
                     Wilder Post Office Building''.
```
§ 75.462 Rearrangement and reconversion costs. ( a ) Costs incurred for ordinary and normal rearrangement and alteration of facilities are allowable as indirect costs. Special arrangements and alterations costs incurred specifically for a Federal award are allowable as a direct cost with the prior approval of the HHS awarding agency or pass-through entity.
( b ) Costs incurred in the restoration or rehabilitation of the non-Federal entity's facilities to approximately the same condition existing immediately prior to commencement of Federal awards, less costs related to normal wear and tear, are allowable.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

DAN LA BOTZ, : 

 : 

 Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 11-1247 (RC) 

 : 

 v. : Re Document No.: 10 

 : 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, : 

 : 

 Defendant. : 

ORDER

For the reasons stated in the court’s Memorandum Opinion separately issued this 5th day 

of September, 2012, it is hereby 

ORDERED that the Federal Election Commission’s (“FEC”) motion to dismiss is 

DENIED; and it is further 

ORDERED that this matter shall be remanded back to the FEC. 

SO ORDERED. 

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:11-cv-01247-RC Document 21 Filed 09/05/12 Page 1 of 1
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6435** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. BRYANT KELLY PRIDE, a/k/a Pride , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Abingdon
. James P. Jones , District Judge. ( 1:08

- cr - 00024

- JPJ

- RSB

- 2 )

Submitted : September 9 , 2015 Decided: September 11, 2015

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Bryant Kelly Pride, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Zachary T. Lee, Assistant United States Attorney s , Mary Kathleen Carnell, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virgin ia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Bryant Kelly Pride appeals the district court ’ s order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of sentence. * We have reviewed the reco rd and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Pride , No. 1:08

- cr - 00024

- JPJ

RSB

- 2 (W.D. Va. filed Mar. 3, 2015; entered Mar. 4, 2015)
. We deny as unnecessary Pride’ s motion for a ce rtificate of appealability. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED

* Although Pride noted an appeal from the district court’s order, he has proffered no argument on appeal specifying any error by the district court in granting his motion.