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

###### Federal Trade Commission

          - [File No. R207009]
          - 16 CFR Part 4

# AGENCY:

Federal Trade Commission.

# ACTION:

Receipt of petition; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of March 3, 2022, concerning the receipt from and request for comments on a petition for rulemaking by NetChoice, Americans for Prosperity, Hispanic Leadership Fund, Innovation Economy Institute, Institute for Policy Innovation, James Madison Institute, National Taxpayers Union, R Street Institute, and Young Voices. The document contained an incorrect subject heading. The Commission is issuing this correction to provide the correct subject heading.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Daniel Freer (phone: 202-326-2663, email:                         *dfreer@ftc.gov*), Office of the Secretary, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Correction

                    In FR Doc. 2022-04489 appearing at 87 FR 12003 in the                     **Federal Register**                     of Thursday, March 3, 2022, on page 12003, at the top of the second column, change the subject heading to read [Petition for Rulemaking of NetChoice et al.] as set forth above. The initial subject heading of [Petition for Rulemaking of Institute for Policy Integrity] was incorrect.                

Dated: March 4, 2022.

April J. Tabor,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2022-04986 Filed 3-9-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.2




CERTIFICATION




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Euro Group of Companies, Inc. (formerly ICT Technologies, Inc.), a Delaware corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:




(1) The Report of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act; and




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








/s/  Andrew EracleousJune 14, 2011
Andrew EracleousChief Financial Officer
#### IN RE JORDAN G.*

(AC 21082)

Lavery, C. J., and Dranginis and Hennessy, Js.

Argued April 30

officially released May 22, 2001

*

 In accordance with the spirit and intent of General Statutes § 46b-142 (b) and Practice Book § 79-3, the names of the parties involved in this appeal are not disclosed. The records and papers of this case shall be open for inspection only to persons having a proper interest therein and upon order of the Appellate Court.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jamile T. BYRD, Defendant-Appellant.

No, 16-7684

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 31, 2017

Decided: June 8, 2017

Jamile T. Byrd, Appellant Pro Se. William Jacob Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jamile T. Byrd seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Byrd has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Exhibit 32.1
 Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 By The Chief Executive Officer,
As Adopted Pursuant To Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002.
  1.
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Toys R Us, Inc. (the Company) for the
quarterly period ended November 1, 2008 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (15 U.S.C. 78m); and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Gerald L. StorchGerald L. StorchChairman and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
#### Joseph ANTONETTI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FOSTER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-17187

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 31, 2017

Joseph Antonetti, Pro Se

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Nevada state prisoner Joseph Antonetti appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing for failure to comply with a court order his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging numerous constitutional and statutory violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. *Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc.,*356 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

Because the record shows that Antonetti stood on his first amended complaint, the district court abused its discretion by converting the 28 U.S.C. § 1915A dismissal of Antonetti’s claims into a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sanction. *See id.*at 1064-65 (dismissal under Rule 41(b) is not appropriate where the plaintiff makes an *842affirmative choice not to amend the complaint).

Nevertheless, dismissal of Antonetti’s first amended complaint under 28 U.S.G. § 1915A was proper because the first amended complaint did not comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 20(a). *See Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. General Dynamics*C4 *Systems, Inc.,*637 F.3d 1047, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2011) (describing requirements of Rule 8(a)); *Coughlin v. Rogers,*130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997) (describing requirements for permissive joinder of parties under Rule 20(a)); *see also Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth standard of review).

The district court properly denied Anto-netti’s motion for class certification because, as a pro se litigant, Antonetti has no authority to represent anyone other than himself. *See C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States,*818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Although a non-attorney may appear in propria persona in his own behalf, that privilege is personal to him.... He has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.” (citation omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Antonetti’s motion for appointment of counsel because Antonetti failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. *See Palmer v. Valdez,*560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and exceptional circumstances requirement for appointment of counsel).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

Certification

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of PowerCerv
Corporation, a Florida corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that the
Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003
(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                     |  |                                                               
|-------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: July 17, 2003 |  | /s/ Marc J. Fratello                                          
|                     |  |                                                               
|                     |  | Name: Marc J. Fratello
Title: Chairman of the Board
(chairman)

18
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



The undersigned, Meeta Vyas, Interim Chief
Financial Officer of NanoViricides, Inc., 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 annual report on Form 10-K of NanoViricides, Inc. for the period ended June 30, 2013 (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 NanoViricides, Inc.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: September 30, 2013 | /s/ Meeta Vyas                        
|------------------------ | --------------------------------------
|                         | Name: Meeta Vyas                      
|                         | Title: Interim Chief Financial Officer
|                         | (Principal Accounting  Officer)       



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed
form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to NanoViricides, Inc.
and will be retained by NanoViricides, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# EUR-Lex - 32002D0844 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002D0844

**2002/844/EC: Commission Decision of 23 October 2002 amending Directive 2001/14/EC in respect of the date for changing the working timetable for rail transport (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2002) 3997) **

*
Official Journal L 289 , 26/10/2002 P. 0030 - 0030 *

Commission Decision

of 23 October 2002

amending Directive 2001/14/EC in respect of the date for changing the working timetable for rail transport

(notified under document number C(2002) 3997)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2002/844/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification(1), and in particular Article 34(3) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Annex III to Directive 2001/14/EC establishes the schedule for the process of allocating rail infrastructure capacity and stipulates that changes to the working timetable are to take place each year at midnight on the last Saturday in May.

(2) For reasons of commercial operation, infrastructure managers and rail companies are proposing that the date for changes to the working timetable be moved to December of each year.

(3) Annex III to Directive 2001/14/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(4) The measures laid down in this Decision are in conformity with the opinion of the Committee set up pursuant to Directive 2001/14/EC,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Paragraph 2 of Annex III to Directive 2001/14/EC is hereby replaced by the following: "2. The change of working timetable shall take place at midnight on the second Saturday in December. Where a change or adjustment is carried out after the winter, in particular to take account, where appropriate, of changes in regional passenger traffic timetables, it shall take place at midnight on the second Saturday in June and at such other intervals between these dates as are required. Infrastructure managers may agree on different dates and in this case they shall inform the Commission if international traffic may be affected."

Article 2

This Decision shall be applied for the 2003 timetable, starting on 14 December 2002. Because of the specific regulatory system in Great Britain, the United Kingdom may apply it from the 2004 timetable, starting in December 2003, provided that the other provisions of the Directive, and in particular those relating to international cooperation, are not affected.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 23 October 2002.

For the Commission

Loyola De Palacio

Vice-President

(1) OJ L 75, 15.3.2001, p. 29.
Exhibit 13.2

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 Gazit-Globe Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gil Kotler, Senior Executive Vice President and 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 to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: April 22, 2015                                                 
|                                                                      
|/s/ Gil Kotler                                                        
|Gil Kotler Senior Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 677 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 677

     To repeal a redundant venue provision, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 5, 1995

   Mr. Hatch introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To repeal a redundant venue provision, 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. REPEAL.

    (a) Repeal.--Subsection (a) of section 1392 of title 28, United 
States Code, is repealed.
    (b) Technical Amendment.--Subsection (b) of section 1392 of title 
28, United States Code, is amended by striking ``(b) Any'' and 
inserting ``Any''.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Chester BROWN, also known as Baldy, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11322

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 6, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Chester Brown, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Chester Browm has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v.*California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 2011). Brown has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Brown’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS' DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under 'the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Iris JAIBAL-AYALA Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III,1 Attorney General of the United States Respondent

No. 16-3214

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 16, 2017

Filed: June 21, 2017

Christopher James Roth, Forney & Roth, Omaha, NE, for Petitioner

Karen Yolanda Drummond, Tracie Nicole Jones, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of *295Immigration Litigation, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC, Timothy Hayes, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, DC, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before-LOKEN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

1

. Jefferson B. Sessions, III has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).

PER CURIAM.

After Guatemalan citizen Iris Jaibal-Ayala sought asylum and withholding of removal based on her membership in the particular social group of Guatemalan women, an immigration judge (IJ) denied relief and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the decision. This petition for review followed. Because the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision, and added its own reasoning, we have reviewed both decisions together, see Alavez-Hernandez v. Holder, 714 F.3d 1063, 1066 (8th Cir. 2013), and we conclude that substantial evidence supports the denial of relief, see id. (standard of review). In particular, Ms. Jaibal-Ayala failed to establish past persecution based on her testimony that, for some two months, gang members threatened to harm her family if one of the daughters was not turned over to the gang for prostitution: though disturbing, the threats were never fulfilled, and were not so menacing as to, without more, constitute past persecution. See Malonga v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 546, 551 (8th Cir. 2008) (withholding-of-removal standard); see also Lemus-Arita v. Sessions, 854 F.3d 476, 481 (8th Cir. 2017) (discussing unfulfilled threats); Alavez-Hernandez, 714 F.3d at 1067 (persecution is extreme concept). Further, insufficient evidence connected these events, or the murder of one of Ms. Jaibal-Ayala’s brothers years later, to her proposed social group. Because the record does not compel the conclusion that Ms. Jaibal-Ayala qualified for withholding of removal, see Alavez-Hernandez, 714 F.3d at 1066, we deny her petition for review.2

2

. We do not consider those claims or issues that were not administratively exhausted, see Camishi v. Holder, 616 F.3d 883, 886 (8th Cir. 2010), or that have been waived, see Wanyama v. Holder, 698 F.3d 1032, 1035 n.1 (8th Cir. 2012).