alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 34.9 Claims involving carriers or insurers. ( a ) *Carriers.* ( 1 ) If property is damaged, lost or destroyed while being shipped pursuant to authorized travel orders, the owner shall file a written claim for reimbursement against the carrier no later than nine months from the date of delivery or should have been made according to the terms of the contract. It shall be filed before or concurrent with submitting a claim against the government under this part.
( 2 ) The demand shall be made against the responsible carrier if more than one contract was issued, a separate demand shall be made against the last carrier on each such document, unless claimant knows which carrier was in possession of the property when the damage or loss occurred.
( b ) *Insurers.* ( 1 ) If property which is damaged, lost, or destroyed incident to the claimant's service is insured in whole or in part, the claimant shall inform the Claims Officer whether a claim was made with the insurance carrier.
( 2 ) The claimant shall inform the claims officer if he or she received a reimbursement from the insurance carrier for the item that was damaged or lost. The exact amount of the reimbursement must be reported.
( 3 ) If the claimant receives a reimbursement for the lost or damaged property from an insurance carrier, the maximum amount that can be recovered from the Department is the difference between an appropriate award under this regulation and the amount recovered from the insurance carrier. The claimant is responsible for submitting to the Department documentation that identifies the exact amount of the reimbursement.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 

BOSTON DIVISION 

___________________________________ 

 ) 

ROBINSON COMMITTEE, LLC and ) 

JACK E. ROBINSON, ) 

 ) Case Number: 1:10-cv-11335-GAO 

Petitioners, ) District Judge George A. O’Toole, Jr. 

) 

v. ) RESPONDENT’S RENEWED 

 ) MOTION TO DISMISS 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ) THE PETITION 

 ) 

 Respondent. ) 

___________________________________ ) 

RESPONDENT FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S 

RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS THE PETITION 

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) respondent Federal Election 

Commission (“FEC”) renews its motion to dismiss the Petition of Robinson Committee, LLC 

and Jack E. Robinson. The renewed motion should be granted because the FEC did not act 

arbitrarily or capriciously in assessing a civil money penalty against petitioners for their failure 

to file on time a report disclosing their 2009 campaign finance activity, as required by the 

Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”), 2 U.S.C. §§ 431-57. During the administrative 

proceedings, the FEC fully considered petitioners’ arguments, and its final determination, which 

is entitled to deference, is rationally supported by the administrative record. 

 In support of this motion, the FEC relies on its accompanying memorandum in support 

and attached exhibits referenced by the Petition. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Phillip Christopher Hughey 

Acting General Counsel 

Case 1:10-cv-11335-GAO Document 11 Filed 05/25/11 Page 1 of 2
2 

David Kolker 

Associate General Counsel 

Kevin Deeley 

Assistant General Counsel 

 /s/ Kevin P. Hancock 

Kevin P. Hancock 

Attorney 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

999 E Street NW 

Washington, DC 20463 

 (202) 694-1650 

Dated: May 25, 2011 e-mail: khancock@fec.gov 

Certificate of Service

 I, Kevin P. Hancock, certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be sent 

electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) 

and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non registered participants on May 25, 2011. 

Dated: May 25, 2011 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Kevin P. Hancock 

Kevin P. Hancock 

Certification of Compliance With Local Rule 7.1(a)(2)

 I, Kevin P. Hancock, certify that pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(2) of this Court, counsel 

to the Commission conferred with counsel for petitioners regarding this Renewed Motion to 

Dismiss the Petition on May 20, 2011 and May 23, 2011. Counsel has advised that petitioners 

will oppose this Motion. 

Dated: May 25, 2011 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Kevin P. Hancock 

Kevin P. Hancock 

Case 1:10-cv-11335-GAO Document 11 Filed 05/25/11 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON
FORM 10-Q OF GOLDLEAF FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC.FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2007

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 Goldleaf Financial Solutions, Inc. (the Issuer) for the
period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report):

| | (a) |  | fully complies with
      the requirements of section 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 certification 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 13, 2007.

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/
      G. Lynn Boggs
| | -----------------------
| | G. Lynn Boggs          
| | Chief Executive Officer

---
No. 3052.

#### Joseph Crowley, Jr. *v.*The State.

Circumstantial Evidence—Charge of the Court.—If, as in this ease, the inculpatory evidence against the accused is purely circumstantial, omission of the trial court to instruct the jury upon the law of circumstantial evidence is material error.

Appeal from the District Court *of*Jack. Tried below *before*the Hon. George A. McCall.

This conviction was for the theft of a yearling, and the penalty assessed against the appellant was a term of three years in the penitentiary.

Mason Oldham, the one witness for the State, testified, in substance, that his certain roan yearling disappeared from its range about the time alleged in the indictment. Two months *579later he found that animal in the defendant’s pasture. He then asked the defendant about the animal, and the defendant replied that he knew nothing whatever about it, nor about the brand which had been placed on it since it was taken from witness’s possession. About two weeks later, defendant came to the witness and declared that the said yearling belonged to him, defendant; that he bought it from a man whose name he refused to disclose, and that the brand was placed on the animal by him, and was his brand. Defendant subsequently left the country and was gone two years.

Opinion delivered December 19, 1888.

The defendant’s mother, his sole witness, testified that, sometime prior to the alleged theft, the defendant traded with his brother James for a number of yearlings. It was her recollection that one of the animals he acquired in that trade was a roan yearling. Defendant afterwards fled the country, and was gone about two years. He was arrested at the witness’s house, and at the time was hiding in a box.

No brief on file for the appellant.

*W. L. Davidson,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Willson, Judge.

In this case the evidence upon which the conviction is based is wholly circumstantial as to the *taking*of the alleged stolen animal by the defendant. He claimed the animal as his property, and admitted that he had placed his brand upon it, but claimed also that he had bought it. He had never admitted that he took it from the range or from the possession of the owner, and there is no evidence, not circumstantial, which connects him with the original taking of the animal. Such being the character of the evidence, the trial court committed a material error in failing to charge the jury with respect to circumstantial evidence, and for this error alone the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

*Reversed and remanded.*
#### Alexander W. Harris, *Appellant, v.*Jacob Van Wagener, *Respondent*.

Order reversed ; order entered as directed in opinion, without costs. Opinion by

Brady, J.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, March 5, 2007, 8 a.m. to March 6, 2007, 9 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on February 8, 2007, 72 FR 5985-5988.                 

The meeting will be held March 12, 2007 to March 13, 2007. The meeting time and location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public. 

Dated: February 27, 2007. 

Anna Snouffer, 

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. 

[FR Doc. 07-1022 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Exhibit 32.3

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Hans Ephraimson, Chief Executive Officer of DB Commodity Services LLC, the Managing Owner of DB US Dollar Index
Bearish Master Fund (the Master Fund), a series of DB US Dollar Index Master Trust, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Master Funds Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Master Fund.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: June 25, 2010 |  | /s/ Hans Ephraimson    
|                     |  | Hans Ephraimson        
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer
# EUR-Lex - 52008AP0201 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52008AP0201

**Simplifying procedures for listing and publishing information in the veterinary and zootechnical fields * European Parliament legislative resolution of 20 May 2008 on the proposal for a Council directive simplifying procedures of listing and publishing information in the veterinary and zootechnical fields and amending Directives 64/432/EEC, 77/504/EEC, 88/407/EEC, 88/661/EEC, 89/361/EEC, 89/556/EEC, 90/427/EEC, 90/428/EEC, 90/429/EEC, 90/539/EEC, 91/68/EEC, 92/35/EEC, 92/65/EEC, 92/66/EEC, 92/119/EEC, 94/28/EC, 2000/75/EC, Decision 2000/258/EC and Directives 2001/89/EC, 2002/60/EC, and 2005/94/EC (COM(2008)0120 — C6-0156/2008 — 2008/0046(CNS)) **

*
Official Journal C 279 E , 19/11/2009 P. 0120 - 0120 *

Simplifying procedures for listing and publishing information in the veterinary and zootechnical fields *

P6_TA(2008)0201

European Parliament legislative resolution of 20 May 2008 on the proposal for a Council directive simplifying procedures of listing and publishing information in the veterinary and zootechnical fields and amending Directives 64/432/EEC, 77/504/EEC, 88/407/EEC, 88/661/EEC, 89/361/EEC, 89/556/EEC, 90/427/EEC, 90/428/EEC, 90/429/EEC, 90/539/EEC, 91/68/EEC, 92/35/EEC, 92/65/EEC, 92/66/EEC, 92/119/EEC, 94/28/EC, 2000/75/EC, Decision 2000/258/EC and Directives 2001/89/EC, 2002/60/EC, and 2005/94/EC (COM(2008)0120 — C6-0156/2008 — 2008/0046(CNS))

(2009/C 279 E/27)

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2008)0120),

- having regard to Article 37 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0156/2008),

- having regard to Rules 51 and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A6-0160/2008),

1. Approves the Commission proposal;

2. Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

3. Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

4. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

--------------------------------------------------
AFS

- 1 5

- 1393

- E

June 25 , 2015

Exemption No. 10844 A Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2001

- 9782

Mr. Peter M. McNeil Clarke Mosquito Control

159 North Garden Avenue Roselle, IL 60172

Dear Mr. McNe il:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted you r petition to extend Exemption No.

10844 . It explains the basis for our decision, desc ribes its effect, and lists the conditions and

limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated April 28 , 201 5 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Clarke Mosquito Control (CMC) for an extension to Exemption No. 10844 . That exemption from § 91.313 (d) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows CMC to carry passengers in certain aircraft, certificated in the restricted category, while performing aerial

site survey flights.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basi s for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting o n this petition would be detrimental to CMC.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10844 remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest.2

Therefore, u nder the authority co ntained in 49 U.S.C. § 106(f), 40113

, and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Clarke Mosquito Control an exemption from 14 CFR § 91.313 (d) to the extent necessary to allow CMC to operate its Bell 206 B3 (N324CM), subject to the following conditions and limitations.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Aircraft operated under the authority of this exemption must be dual

- certificated in the restricted and standard airworthiness categories.

2. Aircraft operating under the authority of t his exemption must be operated with the spray tanks empty.

3. The following passengers may be carried on board aircraft operating under the authority of this exemption: personnel of CMC, consultants to CMC, potential mosquito control customers, and county an d municipal officials.

4. Passengers carried on aircraft operating under the authority of this exemption must be notified before the flight that the operation is being conducted under this exemption from the provisions of the Federal Aviation Regulations that prohibit the carriage of passengers in aircraft certificated in the restricted category.

5. When notified in writing, CMC must comply with any appended conditions and limitations set forth by the manager of the Flight Standards Division of the FAA Great

Lake s regional office.

6. This exemption is not valid for operations outside of the United States.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the termin ation date of Exemption No. 10844 to June 30, 2017

, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerel y,

/s/ John Barbagallo Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service
§ 607.5 Hearing. ( a ) *Request for hearing.* ( 1 ) An employee may file a petition for an oral or paper hearing in accordance with the instructions outlined in the agency's notice to offset.
( 2 ) A hearing may be requested by filing a written petition addressed to the Chief Financial Officer stating why the employee disputes the existence or amount of the debt or, in the case of an individual whose repayment schedule has been established other than by a written agreement, concerning the terms of the repayment schedule. The petition for a hearing must be received by the Chief Financial Officer not later than fifteen (15) calendar days after the employee's receipt of the offset notice, or notice of the terms of the payment schedule, unless the employee can show good cause for failing to meet the filing deadline.
( b ) *Hearing procedures.* ( 1 ) The hearing will be presided over by an impartial hearing official.
( 2 ) The hearing shall conform to procedures contained in the Federal Claims Collection Standards, 4 CFR 102.3(c). The burden shall be on the employee to demonstrate that the existence or the amount of the debt is in error.
§ 75.425 Audit services. ( a ) A reasonably proportionate share of the costs of audits required by, and performed in accordance with, the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 (31 U.S.C. 7501-7507), as implemented by requirements of this part, are allowable. However, the following audit costs are unallowable: ( 1 ) Any costs when audits required by the Single Audit Act and subpart F of this part—have not been conducted or have been conducted but not in accordance therewith; and
( 2 ) Any costs of auditing a non-Federal entity that is exempted from having an audit conducted under the Single Audit Act and subpart F of this part because its expenditures under Federal awards are less than $750,000 during the non-Federal entity's fiscal year.
( b ) The costs of a financial statement audit of a non-Federal entity that does not currently have a Federal award may be included in the indirect cost pool for a cost allocation plan or indirect cost proposal.
( c ) Pass-through entities may charge Federal awards for the cost of agreed-upon-procedures engagements to monitor subrecipients (in accordance with subpart D of this part, §§ 75.351 through 75.353) which are exempted from the requirements of the Single Audit Act and subpart F of this part. This cost is allowable only if the agreed-upon-procedures engagements are: ( 1 ) Conducted in accordance with GAGAS attestation standards;
( 2 ) Paid for and arranged by the pass-through entity; and
( 3 ) Limited in scope to one or more of the following types of compliance requirements: activities allowed or unallowed; allowable costs/cost principles; eligibility; and reporting.
Exhibit 32.1

March 14,
2011
Via EDGAR
Securities and Exchange Commission
Judiciary Plaza
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Re:

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, 2010 as 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 of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:



The
above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the
Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A.Trustee for MV Oil TrustBy:

/s/ MIKE ULRICH Mike Ulrich Vice President


---



QuickLinks
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

In the Matter of )
) Al17-21
Audit Division Recommendation ) Agenda Document No. 19-40-A
Memorandum on the South Dakota )
Democratic Party )
CERTIFICATION

I, Laura E, Sinram, recording secretary of the Federal Election Commission open meeting on
August 22, 2019 do hereby certify that the Commission took the following actions in the above-

captioned matter:

1. Failed by a vote of 2-2 to:

Make a finding that the South Dakota Democratic Party violated the
joint fundraising regulations at 11 C.F.R. § 102.17(c), when it received
$2,494,000 in net proceeds from the Hillary Victory Fund joint
fundraising committee and on the same day transferred these proceeds
to the Democratic National Committee.

Commissioners Walther and Weintraub voted affirmatively for the motion.

Commissioners Hunter and Petersen dissented.

2. Decided by a vote of 4-0 to:

Approve the Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum on the
South Dakota Democratic Party (A17-21), as set forth in Agenda
Document No. 19-40-A.


Federal Election Commission Page 2
Certification for A17-21
August 22, 2019

Commissioners Hunter, Petersen, Walther, and Weintraub voted affirmatively for the

decision.
Attest:
Wasi Glaura® Surraad
Date Laura E. Sinram

Acting Secretary and Clerk of the
Commission
#### § 2552.45 Is a Foster Grandparent a federal employee, an employee of the sponsor or of the volunteer station?

###### Cross Reference

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

Foster Grandparents are volunteers, and are not employees of the sponsor, the volunteer station, CNCS or the Federal Government.

[83 FR 64651, Dec. 17, 2018]