alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **4**
**- 6542** 

DUNCAN LAMARR BURRESS ,
Plaintiff

- Appell ant ,

v.
TIMOTHY PERKINS, Correctional Officer II; JOSHUA HYPES, Correctional Officer; JEREMY ARBOGAST, Correctional Officer; CHAD SISK, Correctional Officer; JESSE FOSTER, Correctional Officer; CHARLES LEGG, Correctional Officer, Lieutenant Shift Commander for Quilliams II; PAUL PARRY, Assistant Warden Security; DAVID BALLARD, Warden; GARY HINTE, Investigator Intelligen ce Officer; JOHNATHAN FRAME, Institutional Investigator; CURTIS DIXON, Sergeant, Institutional Investigator; ROBERT RHODES, Major, Chief Correctional Officer ,
Defendant s

- Appell ees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis trict of West Virginia , at C harleston

. Joseph R. Goodwin , District Judge. ( 2 :1 3

- c v
- 0 1970 )

Submitted : July 24, 2014 Decided: July 29, 2014

Before FLOYD and THACKER , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Duncan Lamarr Burress , Appellant Pro Se

. Kimberly M. Bandy, Natalie C. Schaefer, SHUMAN, MCCUSKEY & SLICER, PLLC,2 Charleston, West Virginia , for Appellee s
.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Duncan Lamarr Burress appeals the district court ’ s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (20 12 ) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm f or the reasons stated by the district

court. Burress v. Perkins , No. 2:13

- cv

- 01970 (S.D.W. Va. Mar.

20, 2014; Mar. 21, 2014) . 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
#### § 75.316 Purpose of property standards.

Sections 75.317 through 75.323 set forth uniform standards governing management and disposition of property furnished by HHS or whose cost was charged directly to a project supported by an HHS award. The HHS awarding agency may not impose additional requirements, unless specifically required to do so by Federal statute. The recipient may use its own property management standards and procedures provided they meet the provisions of these sections.
###### Editorial Note on Part 107

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59780, Oct. 1, 2012.

#### § 107.01-3 Right of appeal.

Any person directly affected by a decision or action taken under this subchapter, by or on behalf of the Coast Guard, may appeal therefrom in accordance with subpart 1.03 of this chapter.

[CGD 88-033, 54 FR 50380, Dec. 6, 1989]
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_____________________________________

 )

STEVE SCHONBERG, PRO SE )

 )

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) Civil Action No. 10-2040 (RWR)

 )

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION and ) NOTICE OF APPEAL 

THE UNITED STATES, )

 ) 

 Defendants. )

_____________________________________ )

NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Notice is hereby given that Steve Schonberg, the plaintiff in the above named case,

appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia from the final 

ORDER entered by the District Court on June 23, 2011, denying plaintiff’s motion to trifurcate 

and granting the motions to dismiss of defendants. 

/s/Steve Schonberg

Steve Schonberg, Pro Se

 60 Wilson Hill Road

 Merrimack, NH 03054

352-789-0610

Email: sschonberg @aol.com

Case 1:10-cv-02040-RWR -JWR -CKK Document 50 Filed 08/07/11 Page 1 of 1
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, Daniel Draper, Principal Executive Officer of Invesco PowerShares Capital Management LLC, the Managing Owner of PowerShares DB US Dollar Index Trust (the “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 Trust’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017, 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; |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|   | (3) | This certification accompanies the report to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of such report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|                     |   | /s/ Daniel Draper           |
|--------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|
|                     |   | Daniel Draper               |
| Dated: February 27, 2018 |   | Principal Executive Officer |
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1916 

To amend the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act to 

provide for a revised schedule of price increases for the Migratory Bird 

Hunting and Conservation Stamp, popularly known as the ‘‘Duck 

Stamp’’, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 2, 2009 

Mr. DINGELL (for himself and Mr. WITTMAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation 

Stamp Act to provide for a revised schedule of price 

increases for the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp, popularly known as the ‘‘Duck Stamp’’, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Migratory Bird Habi5 tat Investment and Enhancement Act’’. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1916 IH

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO EXPAND DUCK STAMP DISTRIBU2 TION AND INCREASE PRICE. 

3 Section 2 of the Migratory Bird Hunting and Con4 servation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718a et seq.), popularly 

5 known as the ‘‘Duck Stamp Act’’ (16 U.S.C. 718b), is 

6 amended as follows: 

7 (1) By amending subsection (a)(1)(B) to read 

8 as follows: 

9 ‘‘(B) such other official distributors as are 

10 designated by the Secretary or any other estab11 lishments, facilities, or locations as the Postal 

12 Service or the Secretary (or a designee) may di13 rect or authorize.’’. 

14 (2) In subsection (a)(3) by inserting ‘‘and any 

15 official distributor designated by the Secretary’’ 

16 after ‘‘Postal Service’’. 

17 (3) By amending subsection (b) to read as fol18 lows: 

19 ‘‘(b) PRICE OF STAMPS.—The Postal Service and any 

20 other official distributor designated by the Secretary 

21 under subsection (a)(1)(B) shall collect, for each stamp 

22 sold— 

23 ‘‘(1) $25 for a stamp for any of hunting years 

24 2010 through 2016; and 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1916 IH

1 ‘‘(2) $35 for a stamp for any hunting year after 

2 hunting year 2020.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
### Clean	Power	Plan **Goal	Computation Call	with	the	State	of	Colorado**  **06 /**  **16 /2014**  **D iscussion	Questions**  Colorado express ed frustration that the numbers for the Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) turbines located within the state that can be found on EIA 923 forms don’t match the EPA data on the units in the Goal Computation TSD Appendix
. See attached Excel spreadsheet with an illustrative example of the data discrepancy.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Benton, Ha ley and Senior Judge Coleman

HALEY OF FARMVILLE MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 0963-06-2 PER CURIAM AUGUST 22, 2006 BRUCE WAYNE STRICKLAND, SR.

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION (James G. Muncie; Angela C. Fl eming; Midkiff, Muncie and Ross, P.C., on brief), for appellant. (Louis D. Snesil; Marks & Ha rrison, on brief), for appellee.

Haley of Farmville appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission finding that Bruce Wayne Strickland, Sr. proved he continued to be disabled from performing the full duties of his pre-injury employment as a result of his compensable September 11, 2002 injury by accident and awarding him temporary partial disability benefits beginning January 1,

2004. We have reviewed the record and the commi ssion’s opinion and hold that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the award for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See Strickland v. Haley of Farmville , VWC File No. 214-33-74 (April 11, 2006). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials be fore the Court and argum ent would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.
§ 73.735-1201 General provisions. ( a ) Violations of the regulations contained in the part may be cause for disciplinary action which could be in addition to any penalty prescribed by law. (For a list of some offenses for which disciplinary action may be taken and “The Code of Ethics for Government Service,” the violation of which may also result in disciplinary action, see appendixes A and B of this part).
( b ) The type of disciplinary action to be taken must be determined in relation to the specific violation. Those responsible for recommending and for taking disciplinary action must apply judgment to each case, taking into account the general objectives of meeting any requirements of law, deterring similar offenses by the employee and other employees, and maintaining high standards of employee conduct and public confidence. Some types of disciplinary action which may be considered are: ( 1 ) Admonishment
( 2 ) Written reprimand
( 3 ) Reassignment
( 4 ) Suspension
( 5 ) Demotion
( 6 ) Removal
( c ) Suspension, demotion, and removal are adverse actions; and when such actions are taken, applicable laws, regulations, and policies must be followed.
[46 FR 7369, Jan. 23, 1981, as amended at 53 FR 4409, Feb. 16, 1988]
Case 3:12-cv-00036-JAG Document 2 Filed 01/23/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 47
Case 3:12-cv-00036-JAG Document 2 Filed 01/23/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 48
Case 3:12-cv-00036-JAG Document 2 Filed 01/23/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 49
§ 900.305 Findings of no significant impact. ( a ) *Definition.* Finding of no significant impact (FONSI) means a document by the Commission briefly presenting the reasons why an action, not otherwise excluded as provided in § 900.204, will not have a significant impact on the human environment and for which an EIS will not be prepared.
( b ) *Applicant responsibility.* The applicant shall assist the Commission with preparing the EA. The Commission remains responsible for compiling the public hearing summary or minutes, where applicable; and copies of any written comments received and responses thereto.
( c ) *Content.* A FONSI shall include the EA or a summary of it and shall note any other environmental documents related to it (40 CFR 1501.7(a)(5)). If the assessment is included, the finding need not repeat any of the discussion in the assessment but may incorporate it by reference.
( d ) *Publication.* The Commission shall make the final FONSI available to the public on the Commission Web site.
( e ) *Special circumstances.* The FONSI notice of availability will be made available for public review (including State and areawide clearinghouses) for 30 days before the Commission makes its final determination whether to prepare an environmental impact statement and before the action may begin (40 CFR 1501.4(e)(2)) where: ( 1 ) The proposed action is, or is closely similar to, one which normally requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement under § 900.405; or
( 2 ) The nature of the proposed action is one without precedent.
§ 650.19 Electronic invention handling. ( a ) Grantees must use the iEdison Invention Information Management System maintained by the National Institutes of Health to disclose NSF subject inventions. Detailed instructions for use of that system are provided at *http://s-edison.info.nih.gov/iEdison/* and should be followed for NSF subject inventions except that: ( 1 ) All communications required must be provided electronically as a PDF or TIFF file through iEdison unless prior permission for another form of submission is obtained from the Patent Assistant.
( 2 ) NSF does not require either an Annual Utilization Report or a Final Invention Statement and Certification.
( b ) Questions on use of iEdison and requests for permission to submit material in other forms may be sent to the NSF Patent Assistant at *patents@nsf.gov* or at Office of the General Counsel, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
[70 FR 43071, July 26, 2005]
150°0'0"W

150°0'0"W

Figure 13. Alternative B

Chickaloon Flats Airplane Access

Produced in the Division of Realty

and Natural Resources

Anchorage, Alaska

Current to: March 3, 2008

Kenai

NWR

Anchorage

Map

Extent

0 0.35 0.7 1.4

Miles

08-0045 JGB

Note: This map does not address land ownership.

0 0.5 1 2

Kilometers

Wheeled Plane Access

Float Plane Access

Chickaloon Flats Area

Forest

Shrubs

Barren or Sparsely Vegetated

Estuarine

Dave Spencer Wilderness Area

Off Refuge

Refuge Boundary

C h i c k a l o o n B a y

Cook Inlet

Gulf of Alaska

Open to float plane operation from latitude 60.851 N.

and longitude 150.043 W. to Chickaloon estuary.

Big Indian Airstrip

T u r n a g a i n A r m

Chickaloon

Ri ver
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of RTI International Metals, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Timothy G. Rupert, 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:

          (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.

August 9, 2004

       /s/ TIMOTHY G. RUPERT
--------------------------------------
          Timothy G. Rupert
       Chief Executive Officer
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1652 

To require institutions receiving certain assistance from the Troubled Asset 

Relief Program or the Federal Reserve to have employee bonus payment 

plans approved in advance of the payments being made. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 19, 2009 

Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To require institutions receiving certain assistance from the 

Troubled Asset Relief Program or the Federal Reserve 

to have employee bonus payment plans approved in advance of the payments being made. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EMPLOYEE BONUS PAYMENT LIMITATIONS. 

4 (a) TARP LIMITATIONS.—The Secretary of the 

5 Treasury shall require that any institution that receives, 

6 directly or indirectly, financial assistance under title I of 

7 the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 

8 U.S.C. 5211 et seq.) after the date of the enactment of 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1652 IH

1 this Act shall only make employee bonus payments if such 

2 payments are included in an employee bonus payment plan 

3 that has been approved by the Secretary of the Treasury. 

4 (b) LIMITATIONS ON CERTAIN ASSISTANCE FROM

5 THE FEDERAL RESERVE.—The Chairman of the Board 

6 of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall require 

7 that any institution that receives, directly or indirectly, fi8 nancial assistance authorized by the Board of Governors 

9 of the Federal Reserve System under the third undesig10 nated paragraph of section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act 

11 (12 U.S.C. 343) after the date of the enactment of this 

12 Act shall only make employee bonus payments if such pay13 ments are included in an employee bonus payment plan 

14 that has been approved by the Secretary of the Treasury. 

15 (c) EMPLOYEE BONUS PAYMENT DEFINED.—The 

16 Secretary of the Treasury shall define the term ‘‘employee 

17 bonus payment’’ for the purposes of this Act, except such 

18 term shall include, at a minimum, retention compensation 

19 and incentive compensation. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
---

---

Exhibit 32.2

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

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Defense Industries International, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission 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 OfficerNovember 2, 2005
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
§ 86.17 Transition plans. ( a ) *Submission of plans.* An institution to which § 86.16 applies and which is composed of more than one administratively separate unit may submit either a single transition plan applicable to all such units, or a separate transition plan applicable to each such unit.
( b ) *Content of plans.* In order to be approved by the United States Commissioner of Education, a transition plan shall: ( 1 ) State the name, address, and Federal Interagency Committee on Education (FICE) Code of the educational institution submitting such plan, the administratively separate units to which the plan is applicable, and the name, address, and telephone number of the person to whom questions concerning the plan may be addressed. The person who submits the plan shall be the chief administrator or president of the institution, or another individual legally authorized to bind the institution to all actions set forth in the plan.
( 2 ) State whether the educational institution or administratively separate unit admits students of both sexes, as regular students and, if so, when it began to do so.
( 3 ) Identify and describe with respect to the educational institution or administratively separate unit any obstacles to admitting students without discrimination on the basis of sex.
( 4 ) Describe in detail the steps necessary to eliminate as soon as practicable each obstacle so identified and indicate the schedule for taking these steps and the individual directly responsible for their implementation.
( 5 ) Include estimates of the number of students, by sex, expected to apply for, be admitted to, and enter each class during the period covered by the plan.
( c ) *Nondiscrimination.* No policy or practice of a recipient to which § 86.16 applies shall result in treatment of applicants to or students of such recipient in violation of Subpart C unless such treatment is necessitated by an obstacle identified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section and a schedule for eliminating that obstacle has been provided as required by paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
( d ) *Effects of past exclusion.* To overcome the effects of past exclusion of students on the basis of sex, each educational institution to which § 86.16 applies shall include in its transition plan, and shall implement, specific steps designed to encourage individuals of the previously excluded sex to apply for admission to such institution. Such steps shall include instituting recruitment programs which emphasize the institution's commitment to enrolling students of the sex previously excluded.
(Secs. 901, 902, Education Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 373, 374; 20 U.S.C. 1681, 1682)
[40 FR 24128, June 4, 1975; 40 FR 39506, Aug. 28, 1975]
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 3, 2019

Order 

Clerk

July 3, 2019

158681(27)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 158681

v COA: 343166

Wayne CC: 04-003608-FC

GREGORY LEE BERRY,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellee to extend the time for 

filing its answer is GRANTED. The answer will be accepted as timely filed if submitted 

on or before August 7, 2019.