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.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

FEMA gives notice of the maximum amounts for assistance under the Individuals and Households Program for emergencies and major disasters declared on or after October 1, 2005. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

October 1, 2005 and applies to major disasters declared on or after October 1, 2005. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Berl Jones, Recovery Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4235. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section 408 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the “Act”), 42 U.S.C. 5174, prescribes that FEMA must annually announce the maximum amounts for assistance provided under the Individuals and Households (IHP) Program. FEMA gives notice that the maximum amount of IHP financial assistance provided to an individual or household under section 408 of the Act with respect to any single emergency or major disaster is $27,200. The maximum amount of Repair Assistance is $5,400, and the maximum amount of Replacement Assistance is $10,900. The increases in award amounts as stated above are for any single emergency or major disaster declared on or after October 1, 2005. 

FEMA bases the adjustments on an increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers of 3.6 percent for the 12-month period ended in August 2005. The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor released the information on September 15, 2005. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.048, Individuals and Households—Housing; 97.049 Individuals and Households—Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, Individuals and Households—Other Needs) 

R. David Paulison,

Acting Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Department of Homeland Security.

[FR Doc. 05-20292 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
STATE v. Bobby Tray WYCHE

260P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 31, 2018

Kevin P. Bradley, Attorney at Law, Durham, for Wyche, Bobby Tray.

Jacob Luke Bumm, Attorney at Law, Durham, Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, Roger A. Echols, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 31st of August 2018 by State of NC for Extension of Time to Respond to Petition for Writ of Certiorari:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 31st of August 2018."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 14th day of September 2018 to Respond to Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4764 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make employers of spouses 

of military personnel eligible for the work opportunity credit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 4, 2010 

Mr. CARTER (for himself, Ms. TITUS, Mr. LOBIONDO, Ms. JACKSON LEE of 

Texas, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mrs. 

CHRISTENSEN, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, 

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. MICA, Mr. OLSON, 

Mr. BONNER, Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. 

NEUGEBAUER, and Mr. MCCOTTER) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 

employers of spouses of military personnel eligible for 

the work opportunity credit. 

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 ‘‘Military Spouses Em5 ployment Act’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4764 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF SPOUSES OF MILITARY PERSONNEL 

2 FOR THE WORK OPPORTUNITY CREDIT. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 51(d) of 

4 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

5 ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph (H), by striking the pe6 riod at the end of subparagraph (I) and inserting ‘‘, or’’, 

7 and by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: 

8 ‘‘(J) a qualified military spouse.’’. 

9 (b) QUALIFIED MILITARY SPOUSE.—Subsection (d) 

10 of section 51 of such Code is amended by redesignating 

11 paragraphs (11), (12), and (13) as paragraph (12), (13), 

12 and (14), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph 

13 (9) the following new paragraph: 

14 ‘‘(11) QUALIFIED MILITARY SPOUSE.—The 

15 term ‘qualified military spouse’ means any individual 

16 who is certified by the designated local agency as 

17 being a spouse (determined as of the hiring date) of 

18 a member of the Armed Forces of the United States 

19 who is serving on a period of extended active duty 

20 which includes the hiring date. For purposes of the 

21 preceding sentence, the term ‘extended active duty’ 

22 means any period of active duty pursuant to a call 

23 or order to such duty for a period in excess of 90 

24 days or for an indefinite period.’’. 

25 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made this 

26 section shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after the 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4764 IH

1 date of the enactment of this Act to individuals who begin 

2 work for the employer after such date. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32

                 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A - 14(B) AND
                  SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE
                    UNITED STATES CODE AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Kahiki Foods, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned certify, pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of
the United States Code 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 results of operations
          of the Company.


/s/ Michael C. Tsao
--------------------------
Michael C. Tsao
President and CEO
August 13, 2004

/s/ Julia A. Fratianne
--------------------------
Julia A. Fratianne
Treasurer and CFO
August 13, 2004

This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Section
1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be
deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise
subject to the liability of that Section. This certification shall not be deemed
to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933
or the Exchange Act, except as otherwise stated in such filing.




                                       19
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration # 10203 and # 10204] 

# AGENCY:

Small Business Administration. 

# ACTION:

Amendment 1. 

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Texas ( FEMA-1606-DR ), dated 9/24/2005. 

*Incident:*                         Hurricane Rita.                     

*Incident Period:*                         9/23/2005 and continuing.                     

*Effective Date:*                         9/30/2005.                     

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         11/23/2005.                     

*EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         6/26/2006.                     

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area Office 3, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of Texas, dated 09/24/2005, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Angelina, Brazoria, Fort Bend, Harris, Montgomery, Nacogdoches, Polk, Sabine, San Augustine, San Jacinto, Shelby, Trinity, Walker. 

Contiguous Counties: 

Louisiana: De Soto. 

Texas: Austin, Cherokee, Grimes, Houston, Madison, Matagorda, Panola, Rusk, Waller, Wharton. 

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) 

Herbert L. Mitchell, 

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 05-20641 Filed 10-14-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
SCIGRIP, INC., et al. v. OSAE, et al.

139A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 2, 2019

K. Edward Greene, Attorney at Law, Benjamin Thompson, Attorney at Law, Tobias S. Hampson, Attorney at Law, J. Blakely Kiefer, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for SciGrip, Inc., et al.

George B. Mast, Attorney at Law, Charles D. Mast, Attorney at Law, Lily VP. Tuttle, Attorney at Law, Smithfield, Clint Mast, Attorney at Law, for Osae, Samuel B.

Philip Strach, Attorney at Law, Brodie D. Erwin, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Scott Bader, Inc.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th of December 2018 by Tobias Hampson to Withdraw as Appellate Counsel:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 2nd of January 2019."
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED
November 16, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-60980 Summary Calendar

MAZEN JABER MAHMOUD AHMAD; SUHAIR SAADO BANAT; RAMI MAZEN JABER AHMED; RAWAN MAZEN JABER AHMAD; RUBA MAZEN JABER AHMAD,

Petitioners,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A79 556 494 BIA No. A79 556 495 BIA No. A79 556 496 BIA No. A79 556 497 BIA No. A79 556 498

Before GARWOOD, JONES and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Mazen Jaber Mahmoud Ahmad, his wife Suhair Saado Banat, and

their children (collectively, the Ahmads) petition this court for2

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order denying

their motion to reconsider a final order of removal. The Ahmads

contend that the immigration judge (IJ) abused his discretion in

denying a motion for a continuance because the Ahmads established

that their visa application should have been approved, rendering

visas “immediately available” to them as required by 8 U.S.C. §

1255(a)(3).

As an initial matter, the respondent asserts that we do not

have jurisdiction over the Ahmads’ petition for review under 8

U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). This argument is foreclosed by this

court’s opinions in Zhao v. Gonzales , 404 F.3d 295, 302-03 (5th

Cir. 2005), and Manzan o-Garcia v. Gonzales , 413 F.3d 462, 466-70

(5th Cir. 2005).

This court reviews the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider

under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Lara v.

Trominski
, 216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir. 2000); Osucukwu v. INS , 744

F.2d 1136, 1141-42 (5th Cir. 1984). The Ahmads have not met this

standard. An alien is entitled to an adjustment of status at the

Attorney General’s discretion “if (1) the alien makes an

application for such adjustment, (2) the alien is elig ible to

receive an immigration visa and is admissible to the United States
for permanent residence, and (3) an immigrant visa is immediately

available to [the alien] at the time his application is filed.” 8

U .S.C. § 1255(a). Even if it is assumed that the Ahmads’ visa3

application was approved, rendering them eligible to receive visas,

t hey have not established that immigrant visas are immediately

available to them as third preference visa holders. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1153 (a)(3). S ee also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(1). The IJ therefore

did not abuse his discretion in denying a motion for continuance,

because the Ahmads have not shown good cause. See Witter v. INS
,

113 F.3d 549, 5 55 (5th Cir. 1997); D iarra v. Gonzales , 137 F.

App’x. 627, 632 n.5 (5th Cir. June 2, 2005) (No. 04-60097)
(unpublished). Consequently, the Ahmads’ petition for review is

DENIED.
SYKES, et al. v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al.

248A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 3, 2018

Robert E. Fields, III, Attorney at Law, Samuel Pinero, II, Attorney at Law, William A. Blancato, GAL Appellate Attorney, Leon E. Porter, Attorney at Law, Ellis B. Drew, III, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for Sykes, Susan, et al.

Elizabeth L. Winters, Attorney at Law, Chad D. Hansen, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, Adam H. Charnes, Attorney at Law, for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina.

D. Erik Albright, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Cigna Healthcare of North Carolina, Inc.

Stephen D. Feldman, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Medcost LLC.

Jennifer K. Van Zant, Attorney at Law, Greensboro.

Benjamin R. Norman, Attorney at Law, Greensboro.

W. Michael Dowling, Attorney at Law.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 30th of November 2018 by Defendants:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd of December 2018."

Defendants shall have up to and including the 14th day of January 2019 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
*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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 16, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-60980

Summary Calendar

 

MAZEN JABER MAHMOUD AHMAD; 

SUHAIR SAADO BANAT; 

RAMI MAZEN JABER AHMED; 

RAWAN MAZEN JABER AHMAD; 

RUBA MAZEN JABER AHMAD,

Petitioners,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. 

ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

 

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A79 556 494

BIA No. A79 556 495

BIA No. A79 556 496

BIA No. A79 556 497

BIA No. A79 556 498

 

Before GARWOOD, JONES and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mazen Jaber Mahmoud Ahmad, his wife Suhair Saado Banat, and

their children (collectively, the Ahmads) petition this court for
2

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order denying

their motion to reconsider a final order of removal. The Ahmads

contend that the immigration judge (IJ) abused his discretion in

denying a motion for a continuance because the Ahmads established

that their visa application should have been approved, rendering

visas “immediately available” to them as required by 8 U.S.C. §

1255(a)(3).

As an initial matter, the respondent asserts that we do not

have jurisdiction over the Ahmads’ petition for review under 8

U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). This argument is foreclosed by this

court’s opinions in Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 302-03 (5th

Cir. 2005), and Manzano-Garcia v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 462, 466-70

(5th Cir. 2005).

This court reviews the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider

under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. Lara v.

Trominski, 216 F.3d 487, 496 (5th Cir. 2000); Osucukwu v. INS, 744

F.2d 1136, 1141-42 (5th Cir. 1984). The Ahmads have not met this

standard. An alien is entitled to an adjustment of status at the

Attorney General’s discretion “if (1) the alien makes an

application for such adjustment, (2) the alien is eligible to

receive an immigration visa and is admissible to the United States

for permanent residence, and (3) an immigrant visa is immediately

available to [the alien] at the time his application is filed.” 8

U.S.C. § 1255(a). Even if it is assumed that the Ahmads’ visa
3

application was approved, rendering them eligible to receive visas,

they have not established that immigrant visas are immediately

available to them as third preference visa holders. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1153(a)(3). See also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(1). The IJ therefore

did not abuse his discretion in denying a motion for continuance,

because the Ahmads have not shown good cause. See Witter v. INS,

113 F.3d 549, 555 (5th Cir. 1997); Diarra v. Gonzales, 137 F.

App’x. 627, 632 n.5 (5th Cir. June 2, 2005) (No. 04-60097)

(unpublished). Consequently, the Ahmads’ petition for review is

DENIED.
#### Mohammad ALIAKBARI, Respondent, v. James FEICHT, et al., Appellants.

No. ED 82100.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

July 22, 2003.

Ryan S. Shaughnessy, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., WILLIAM H. CRANDALL JR., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J.

*ORDER*

Mohammad Aliakbari (“buyer”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing counts one through three of his amended petition against James Feicht and Lee Wisniewski (collectively “appraisers”) for breach of contract to a third party beneficiary, negligence, negligent representation, and violation of the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4684 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4684

    To provide for a notice and comment period before the Bureau of 
 Consumer Financial Protection issues guidance, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 20, 2014

 Mr. Stutzman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide for a notice and comment period before the Bureau of 
 Consumer Financial Protection issues guidance, 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 the ``Bureau Guidance Transparency Act''.

SEC. 2. STANDARDS FOR ISSUING GUIDANCE.

    Section 1022(b) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 
(12 U.S.C. 5512(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(5) Standards for issuing guidance.--In issuing any 
        guidance, the Bureau shall--
                    ``(A) provide for a public notice and comment 
                period before issuing the guidance in final form; and
                    ``(B) when issuing guidance in final form, make 
                available to the public, including on the website of 
                the Bureau, all studies, data, and other analysis 
                relied on by the Bureau in preparing and issuing such 
                guidance.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4862 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4862

 To permit Members of Congress to administer the oath of allegiance to 
         applicants for naturalization, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 2010

 Mr. Serrano introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To permit Members of Congress to administer the oath of allegiance to 
         applicants for naturalization, 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. CONGRESSIONAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.

    Section 337(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1448(a)) is amended in the first sentence by inserting before ``or a 
court with jurisdiction'' the following: ``, a Member of, or Delegate 
or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress,''.
                                 <all>
```