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

This pamphlet provides general information about the reports that the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) require to be filed with the U.S. Department of Labor by labor unions, union officers and employees, employers, labor relations consultants, and surety companies.

The LMRDA applies to labor organizations that represent private sector employees and U.S. Postal Service employees while the CSRA applies to labor organizations that represent employees in most agencies of the executive branch of the federal government. The regulations implementing the standards of conduct provisions of the CSRA incorporate many LMRDA provisions, including those related to labor organization reporting requirements. (Federal sector labor organizations subject to the Foreign Service Act or the Congressional Accountability Act are also required to file the union reports described in this pamphlet.)

All reports must be filed with the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS). Each reporting form prescribed by OLMS and the type of information to be reported are discussed in this pamphlet. The table at the back of this pamphlet lists the name and number of each form, the persons who are required to sign and file it, and its due date.

This pamphlet is designed to assist those subject to the reporting requirements of the LMRDA or the CSRA. It presents general information about the provisions of the laws and should not be construed as an official interpretation of their provisions. Detailed instructions concerning the completion of the forms and information to be reported are included with the reporting forms.

 

* *Back to Top

 

----

**General Reporting Requirements**

The Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMDA), and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) require certain reports to be filed with the U.S. Department of Labor.

* *Back to Top

----

**Enforcement**

* *Back to Top

----

**Union Reports**

* *Back to Top

----

**Other Reports**

* *Back to Top

----

**OLMS Assistance**

**Office of Labor-Management Standards Field Offices**

Staff is available to answer questions about the LMRDA at the OLMS Field Offices. For the address and telephone number of our field offices, please visit the OLMS Office Locator webpage.

Office of Labor-Management Standards Field Offices

Atlanta, GABirmingham, ALBoston, MABuffalo, NYChicago, ILCincinnati, OH

Cleveland, OHDallas, TXDenver, CODetroit, MIFt. Lauderdale, FLHonolulu, HI

Kansas City, MOLos Angeles, CAMilwaukee, WIMinneapolis, MNNashville, TNNew Orleans, LA

New York, NYPhiladelphia, PAPittsburgh, PASt. Louis, MOSan Francisco, CA

Seattle, WATampa, FLWashington, DC

 

**Reports Required Under the LMRDA and the CSRA****– UNION REPORTS –**

**– OTHER REPORTS –**

 

**Last Updated: 6-05-23**
**Exhibit 32(b)**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350

 

In connection with theForm 10-Q of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30,2007, I, William R. Talley, Jr., Executive Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to thebest of my knowledge and belief, that:

 

(1) such Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) the information contained in such Form 10-Q for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Frederick County Bancorp, Inc.

 

 

 
| /s/ William R. Talley, Jr.                           |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| William R. Talley, Jr.                               |   |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN W. LENTZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2617 LKK DAD P

vs.

DR. ATHAUASSIOUS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On October 4, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. On October 7, 2005,

plaintiff requested additional time to amend his complaint. On October 14, 2005, plaintiff was

granted an additional forty-five days to file an amended complaint and was cautioned that failure

to do so would result in the findings and recommendations being referred to the undersigned. 

The time period has now expired and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise

responded to the findings and recommendations.

Case 2:04-cv-02617-LKK -DAD Document 11 Filed 01/13/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that: 

1. The findings and recommendations filed October 4, 2005, are adopted in full;

and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(b).

DATED: January 12, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/lent2617.800

Case 2:04-cv-02617-LKK -DAD Document 11 Filed 01/13/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.65


 


Summary Translation of Sample Supply
Contract


 


Note: The summary translation agreement below
is summary translation of one of a series of agreements between Yantai Mouping District Zhisheng Agricultural Produce Cooperative
and Mouping Gaoling Supply and Sales Cooperatives Complex Sales Department that the companies use that constitute separate agreements,
yet all such agreements are nearly identical in most respects, except for the specific term, price, and subject of the purchase
or sale order (e.g., fertilizers, mats, seeds, etc.).


 


Party A: Yantai Mouping District
Zhisheng Agricultural Produce Cooperative


 


Party B: Mouping Gaoling Supply
and Sales Cooperatives Complex Sales Department


 


Date of Delivery: 2013-01-01 to 2013-06-30


 


Products: fertilizers, seeds, etc.


 


Party B is responsible for delivery of
products to Party A; Party A shall make 30% of payments in advance, the balance shall be cleared within 6 months.


 


Under the premise of Party B’s errorless
delivery, Party A shall pay Party B 5% of the total payment as liquidated damages if Party A calls a halt or receives similar products
elsewhere. If Party A fails to pay on the date stipulated in the contract, it shall pay Party B 0.3% of the total amount each day
as fine on a delay.


 


Any products that are not corresponding
to the contract shall be reduced at price if Party A agrees to utilize those products; any non-utilizable products shall be returned
to Party B for exchange; any delay due to related issue, Party B shall pay Party A 0.3% of the total payment as liquidated damages
on a delay.


 


Any price change will be based on the mutual
consent from both parties.


 


Any changes on quality, price, packaging,
etc. by Party B shall be negotiated with Party A five days in advance.


 


Neither party shall have the right to change
or revise the contract without authorization.


 


Any dispute between the parties shall be
brought up to local court.


 


Signed date: 2012-12-15
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v STEPHEN E. LOAR, Private First Class, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

18 USCMA 210, 39 CMR 210

No. 21,657

March 21, 1969

*Captain Michael I. Walling,*USMCR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

. *Captain Charles E. Patterson,*USMCR, was on the pleadings for Ap-pellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER Curiam:

We granted review in this case to determine whether Article 38(b), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 838, had been complied with. The record reflects that, at'the outset, a *pro forma*inquiry was made to determine whether the accused had been advised of his rights concerning counsel as set forth in Article 38(b) of the Code.

In United States v Donohew, 18 USCMA 149, 39 CMR 149, decided March 7, 1969, we held that this type of inquiry constituted *minimal*compliance with Article 38(b). However, as we stated in *Donohew:*

> “We believe the seriousness of the situation dictates that *the record should contain the accused’s personal response to direct questions incorporating each of the elements of Article 38(b), as well as his understanding of his entitlement thereunder.*

> *“Accordingly, the record in each special or general court-martial convened more than thirty. days after the date of this*[Donohew] *opinion should reflect this requirement has been met.*United States v Rinehart, 8 USCMA. 402, 24 CMR 212.” [Emphasis supplied in part.]

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

Form 10-QSB Certification

 

I, Najam Saiduddin, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of CalWestBancorp;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I am responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and we have:

 

a)              Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)             (Intentionally Omitted)

 

c)              Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

d)             Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

 

a)              All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)              Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| **Date: November 12, 2003** | **/s/ Najam M. Saiduddin** |
|-----------------------------|----------------------------|
|                        | Najam M. Saiduddin         |
|                        | Chief Financial Officer    |
|                             |                            |  |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 5019 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 5019

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 340 South Loudon Avenue in Baltimore, Maryland, as the ``United 
    States Representative Elijah E. Cummings Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 11, 2024

 Mr. Cardin (for himself and Mr. Van Hollen) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 340 South Loudon Avenue in Baltimore, Maryland, as the ``United 
    States Representative Elijah E. Cummings Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS POST OFFICE 
              BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 340 South Loudon Avenue in Baltimore, Maryland, shall be 
known and designated as the ``United States Representative Elijah E. 
Cummings 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 ``United 
States Representative Elijah E. Cummings Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4851 

AN ACT 

To adjust the boundaries of the Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area to include the Scarper Ridge property. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 4851 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Scarper Ridge Golden 

3 Gate National Recreation Area Boundary Adjustment Act 

4 of 2024’’. 

5 SEC. 2. SCARPER RIDGE BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT. 

6 Section 2(a)(2) of Public Law 92–589 (16 U.S.C. 

7 460bb–1(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the fol8 lowing: 

9 ‘‘(F) Land generally depicted as ‘Proposed 

10 Boundary Addition’ on the map entitled ‘Gold11 en Gate National Recreation Area Proposed 

12 Boundary Addition’, numbered 641/193973, 

13 and dated July 2024.’’. 

Passed the Senate December 19 (legislative day, December 16), 2024. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4851 

AN ACT 

To adjust the boundaries of the Golden Gate NaRidge property. tional Recreation Area to include the Scarper
#### HAROLD NAPOLIELLO, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. TUNG-SOL ELECTRIC, INC., RESPONDENT-PETITIONER.

*Mr. Isidor Kalisch*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Avidan & Avidan*for the respondent.

May 14, 1962.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4832 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4832

To require the Federal Communications Commission to amend the rules of 
   the Commission to include a shark attack as an event for which a 
  wireless emergency alert may be transmitted, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 30, 2024

Mrs. Britt (for herself and Mrs. Capito) introduced the following bill; 
    which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Federal Communications Commission to amend the rules of 
   the Commission to include a shark attack as an event for which a 
  wireless emergency alert may be transmitted, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as ``Lulu's Law''.

SEC. 2. WIRELESS EMERGENCY ALERTS.

    (a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Alert Message'' has 
the meaning given the term in section 10.10(a) of title 47, Code of 
Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation.
    (b) Requirement.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall 
amend part 10 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or any 
successor regulations, to provide that a shark attack is an event for 
which an Alert Message may be transmitted under that part (or 
successor, if applicable).
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5243

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus CERON MONTRELL REED, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00419-1) Submitted: May 30, 2007 Decided: July 10, 2007 Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cecilia Oseguera, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kevin Zolot, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Ceron Montrell Reed pled guilty to carjacking (Count 1), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119 (2000); using or carrying a firearm during a crime of violence (Count 2), in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007); and possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony (Count 3), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). The district court imposed a 262-month sentence consisting of a total of 142 months as a career offender on Counts 1 and 3 and a consecutive 120 months on Count 2. Reed’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging Reed’s sentence on Counts 1 and 3 but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Reed was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm. Counsel questions whether the district court violated Reed’s Sixth Amendment rights by classifying Reed as a career offender under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual§ 4B1.1 (2005), where the predicate convictions were not charged in the indictment or proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This argument is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Collins , 412 F.3d 515, 521-23 (4th Cir. 2005). In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record for any meritorious issues and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm Reed’s convictions and sentence. This court- 3 - requires that counsel inform her client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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
SERVED: MAY 7, 2012 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THEMATTER OF SCOTTNOVAK FAADOCKET NO. [TO BEASSIGNED] FOMS NO. FAA-2012-0206


### NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

### ll**~~~a** 

### p i:t1.2

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2012NM730033) has been assigned to Administrative LawJudge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other communications regarding this proceeding shall be served onthe Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List.

Attachment

- Service ListSERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 WilburWright Building-Suite 2Wl000 1 ONE COPY Joseph W. Geldhof, 

### Respondent's Counsel 2 Marine Way, Suite 207 Juneau, AK 99801 TEL: 907-586-8193 MOBILE: 907-723-9901 E-mail: joeg@alaska.com Howard L. Martin, Jr., 

### Complainant's Counsel Regional Counsel, Office ofRegional Counsel, AAL-7 Alaskan Region Federal Aviation Administration 222 W. 7th Avenue #14 · Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 TEL: 907-271-5269 FAX: 907- 271-2800 FDMS No. FAA-2012-0206 (Civil Penalty Action)

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,

### AdministrativeLawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S.Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536

· 1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: HearingDocket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### -2-
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                         SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906
                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

            I, Klaus Moeller, Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief
Financial Officer of Genius Products, Inc. (the "Registrant"), do hereby certify
pursuant to Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code
that:

            (1) the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Registrant
for the period ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report"), to which this statement
is filed as an exhibit, 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
Registrant.

Dated:  April 29, 2004             By:    /S/ KLAUS MOELLER
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Klaus Moeller
                                          Chief Executive Officer and Interim
                                          Chief Financial Officer (principal
                                          financial officer)