alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| 1.   | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the      dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company      for the periods presented. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/Patricia      Cohen                             |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                               |
| Name:  | Patricia      Cohen                                |
|   |                                               |
| Title: | Principal      Executive Officer and      Director |
|   |                                               |
| Date:  | July      13, 2009                                 |
|   |                                               |
| By:    | /s/      Paul      Slusarczyk                      |
|   |                                               |
| Name:  | Paul      Slusarczyk                               |
|   |                                               |
| Title: | Principal      Financial Officer and Director      |
|   |                                               |
| Date:  | July      13,2009                                  |
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 INTERSTATE HOTELS & RESORTS, INC.
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Interstate Hotels &
Resorts, Inc. (the Registrant) for the three months ended March 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Steven D. Jorns, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant,
hereby 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; and2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Registrant. Dated: May 10, 2004 /s/ Steven D. JornsSteven
            D. JornsChief
            Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3874 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3874

 To amend section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to ensure 
 appropriate compensation for certain hours of overtime work by border 
                             patrol agents.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 17, 2022

   Mr. Cornyn (for himself, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Lankford, and Mr. Kelly) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
          Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to ensure 
 appropriate compensation for certain hours of overtime work by border 
                             patrol agents.

    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 ``Border Patrol Pay Security Act of 
2022''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

    The purposes of this Act are--
            (1) to strengthen U.S. Customs and Border Protection; and
            (2) to ensure that border patrol agents are compensated 
        with premium pay for certain hours of overtime work.

SEC. 3. FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT OF 1938 PREMIUM PAY FOR BORDER PATROL 
              AGENTS.

    Section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 207) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(s) Employment as a Border Patrol Agent.--No public agency shall 
be deemed to have violated subsection (a) with respect to the 
employment of any border patrol agent (as defined in section 5550(a)(2) 
of title 5, United States Code), if, during a work period of 14 
consecutive days, the border patrol agent receives compensation at a 
rate not less than 150 percent of the regular rate at which the border 
patrol agent is employed for all hours of work between 80 hours and 100 
hours. Payments required under this subsection shall be in addition to 
any payments made under section 5550 of title 5, United States Code, 
and shall be made notwithstanding any pay limitations set forth in that 
title.''.

SEC. 4. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

    Section 13(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 
213(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (18).
                                 <all>
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LINDA LYNAUGH, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

MICHAEL VINCENT; STINSON 

LEONARD STREET LLP, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-15363 

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-04643-DJH 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2021**

Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges. 

Linda Lynaugh appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing 

her action alleging Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) claims. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Kwan v. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 19 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 20-15363

SanMedica Int’l, 854 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Lynaugh’s action because Lynaugh 

failed to allege facts sufficient to show a qualifying debt under the FDCPA. See 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must 

contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Turner v. 

Cook, 362 F.3d 1219, 1226-27 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that court judgments are 

not transactions under the FDCPA; a transaction under the FDCPA must involve 

some kind of business dealing or consensual obligation). 

We reject as unsupported by the record Lynaugh’s contentions that 

defendants made fraudulent misrepresentations in the district court. 

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 8646]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3716]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


CNO Executive Panel; Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given that the Chief of Naval 
Operations (CNO) Executive Panel will meet 28 February and 1 March 
1995, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., on each day. The meeting will be 
held at 4401 Ford Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia on 28 February and at 
the Headquarters, National Security Agency, Fort Meade, Maryland on 1 
March. These sessions will be closed to the public.

    The purpose of this meeting is to conduct discussions on strategies 
for an uncertain future to include current intelligence, information 
warfare, and special access programs. These matters constitute 
classified information that is specifically authorized by Executive 
order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense and are, in 
fact, properly classified pursuant to such Executive order. 
Accordingly, the Secretary of the Navy has determined in writing that 
the public interest requires that all sessions of the meeting be closed 
to the public because they will be concerned with matters listed in 
section 552b(c)(1) of title 5, United States Code.

    For further information concerning this meeting, contact: Timothy 
J. Galpin, Assistant for CNO Executive Panel Management, 4401 Ford 
Avenue, Suite 601, Alexandria, VA 22302-0268, Phone: (703) 756-1205.

    Dated: February 6, 1995.
L. R. McNees,
LCDR, JAGC, USN, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-3716 Filed 2-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-F
#### E. J. COX and Wife, EVA C. COX, v. C. WORTH SHAW.

(Filed 30 November, 1955.)

1. Reference § 11—

Upon the hearing upon exceptions to the report of a referee, the court has authority to affirm, amend, modify, set aside, confirm in whole or in part, or disaffirm the report of the referee.

2. Same: Appeal and Error § 2—

Upon the hearing of exceptions to the referee’s report, the court’s order vacating the report and ordering a new survey is purely interlocutory and affects no substantial right, and an appeal therefrom is fragmentary and premature. G-.S. 1-277.

*1923. Reference § 11: Courts § 5: Judgments § 33f—

Where defendant, upon the filing of the report of the referee, moves for a new survey prior to the filing of exceptions, the reference is not before the court upon the hearing of the motion, and the denial of the motion does not preclude another Superior Court judge from vacating the report and ordering a new survey upon the hearing upon the exceptions.

Appeal by plaintiffs from *Stevens, J.,*May Term, 1955, BladeN.

Appeal dismissed.

Civil action to try title to land.

The cause was referred and a survey ordered. The referee filed his report. Defendant moved for a new survey. The motion was denied and leave was granted to file exceptions. Thereafter exceptions were filed, and the cause came on to be heard in the court below. The court vacated the reference, ordered a new survey and such additional hearing as might be necessary upon the new survey. Plaintiffs excepted and appealed.

*H. H. Clark for plaintiff appellants.*

*Ellis E. Page and Varser, McIntyre & Henry for defendant appellee.*

PeR CuRiam.

When the cause came on to be heard on exceptions filed, the court had authority to affirm, amend, modify, set aside, confirm in whole or in part, or disaffirm the report of the referee. *Quevedo v. Deans,*234 N.C. 618, 68 S.E. 2d 275; *Keith v. Silvia,*233 N.C. 328, 64 S.E. 2d 178; G.S. 1-194, 195. The order vacating the report of the referee and ordering a new survey was purely interlocutory. It affected no substantial right of the parties. G.S. 1-277. Appeal therefrom was fragmentary and premature. *Whitehurst v. Hinton,*222 N.C. 85, 21 S.E. 2d 874.

We may note that the motion for a new survey made before the court below is quite different from the motion made before exceptions were filed. At the time Carr, J., signed his order, the reference was not before him for consideration. *Keith v. Silvia, supra.*

Appeal dismissed.
The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for 1

the District of Minnesota.

___________

No. 96-1849

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Minnesota.

*

Bernard Hawkins, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: July 26, 1996

 Filed: November 12, 1996

___________

Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Bernard Hawkins was charged with escaping from a community

corrections center (a halfway house), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751. He

testified at trial that he left the halfway house out of fear for his life,

because he knew he was going to test positive for cocaine use and

anticipated being returned to prison, where he had previously been stabbed

and assaulted. The jury found Hawkins guilty, and the district court1

sentenced him to 8 months in prison. On appeal, Hawkins contends the district court erred

in not granting him an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. We

affirm.
-2-

We review de novo the district court's application of section 3E1.1, United States

v. Barris, 46 F.3d 33, 35 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam), and for clear error its attendant

factual findings, United States v. Hawkins, 78 F.3d 348, 352 (8th Cir. 1996), petition for

cert. filed, (U.S. June 1, 1996) (No. 95-9212). We question whether Hawkins was eligible

for an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, because by presenting a duress defense, he

effectively sought to negate his responsibility for leaving the halfway house. See United

States v. Johnson, 956 F.2d 894, 904 (9th Cir. 1992); cf. United States v. Patterson, 885

F.2d 483, 484 (8th Cir. 1989) (affirming district court's denial of § 3E1.1 reduction for

defendant convicted of unlawful possession of firearm where defendant insisted he carried

firearm only for protection).

In any event, given the great deference accorded the district court, we conclude the

court did not clearly err in finding Hawkins had not met his burden of clearly demonstrating

he had accepted responsibility. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) & comment. (n.5); United States

v. Byrd, 76 F.3d 194, 196 (8th Cir. 1996) (discussing burden). Hawkins's voluntary

admission of the conduct comprising his offense of conviction does not automatically entitle

him to the reduction, see Hawkins, 78 F.3d at 352, nor does his expression of regret at

sentencing, see United States v. Roggy, 76 F.3d 189, 194 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S.

Ct. 1700 (1996). Further, Hawkins does not dispute the government gave him two

opportunities before trial to enter into a plea agreement, and he has not pointed to any

pretrial statements or conduct which would indicate he accepted responsibility. See

U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.2).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 11115]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4926]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Titanium Matrix Composites Turbine Engine 
Component Consortium

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 19, 1994, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), General Electric Company 
filed notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the 
Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties 
and (2) the nature and objectives of the Titanium Matrix Composites 
Turbine Engine Component Consortium (``TMCTECC''). The notifications 
were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting 
the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of 
the parties are: General Electric Company, acting by and through its GE 
Aircraft Engines, Cincinnati, OH; United Technologies Corporation, 
acting by and through its Pratt & Whitney Government Engines and Space 
Propulsion Division, West Palm Beach, FL; Textron Specialty Materials, 
a Division of AVCO Corporation, Lowell, MA; Minnesota Mining & 
Manufacturing Company, St. Paul, MN; Howmet Corporation, Whitehall, MI; 
and Atlantic Research Corporation, Gainesville, VA. The TMCTECC was 
formed for the purpose to develop and qualify TMC reinforced parts and 
components and to establish low cost fibers, TMC's and component 
manufacturing processes for TMC implementation into production 
hardware. The TMCTECC shall seek to achieve this objective through 
development of cost-effective processes to produce TMC reinforced fan 
blades and frames.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 95-4926 Filed 2-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 8440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3579]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
[AC-03; OTS Nos. H-1792 and 02611]


Community Bank Shares, M.H.C., New Albany, Indiana; Approval of 
Conversion Application

    Notice is hereby given that on January 25, 1995, the Deputy 
Assistant Director, Corporate Activities, Office of Thrift Supervision, 
or her designee, acting pursuant to delegated authority, approved the 
application of Community Bank Shares, M.H.C., New Albany, Indiana, to 
convert to the stock form of organization. Copies of the application 
are available for inspection at the Information Services Division, 
Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, D.C. 
20552, and the Central Regional Office, Office of Thrift Supervision, 
111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 800, Chicago, Illinois 60601-4360.

    Dated: February 8, 1995.

    By the Office of Thrift Supervision,
Nadine Y. Washington,
Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-3579 Filed 2-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6720-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 11097]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4974]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Harrison Bankshares, Inc.; Notice of Application to Engage de 
novo in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The company listed in this notice has filed an application under 
Sec.  225.23(a)(1) of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.23(a)(1)) 
for the Board's approval under section 4(c)(8) of the Bank Holding 
Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843(c)(8)) and Sec.  225.21(a) of Regulation Y 
(12 CFR 225.21(a)) to commence or to engage de novo, either directly or 
through a subsidiary, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in Sec.  
225.25 of Regulation Y as closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, such activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    The application is available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing on the question whether consummation of the proposal can 
``reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the public, such as 
greater convenience, increased competition, or gains in efficiency, 
that outweigh possible adverse effects, such as undue concentration of 
resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interests, or 
unsound banking practices.'' Any request for a hearing on this question 
must be accompanied by a statement of the reasons a written 
presentation would not suffice in lieu of a hearing, identifying 
specifically any questions of fact that are in dispute, summarizing the 
evidence that would be presented at a hearing, and indicating how the 
party commenting would be aggrieved by approval of the proposal.
    Comments regarding the application must be received at the Reserve 
Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than 
March 15, 1995.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Lloyd W. Bostian, Jr., Senior 
Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261:
    1. Harrison Bankshares, Inc., Lost Creek, West Virginia; to engage 
de novo through Harrison Mortgages, Inc., Lost Creek, West Virginia; in 
originating mortgage loans, pursuant to Sec.  225.25(b)(1) of the 
Board's Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 23, 
1995.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 95-4974 Filed 2-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
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 NASB Financial, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Rhonda Nyhus, Chief Financial 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.


May 15, 2003                By:  /s/ Rhonda Nyhus
                                 Rhonda Nyhus
                                  Vice President and Treasurer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to NASB Financial, Inc. and will be retained by NASB
Financial, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.


This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
subject to the knowledge standard contained therein , and not for any
other purpose.

<Page>
10474 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

25 CFR Part 225

RIN 1076–AD00

Oil and Gas, Solid Mineral, and

Geothermal Minerals Agreements;

Correction

February 13, 1995.

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs,

Interior.

ACTION: Correction to final regulations.

SUMMARY: This document contains a

correction to the final regulations,

which were published Wednesday,

March 30, 1994 (59 FR 14960). The

regulations relate to oil and gas, solid

mineral, and geothermal minerals

agreements contained in 25 CFR part

225.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 24, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: M.L.

Millgate (303) 231–5070.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The final regulations that are the

subject of this correction, supersede

§ 225.30(d) on the effective date and

affect persons holding letters of credit

payable on demand to the Bureau of

Indian Affairs in accordance with

§ 225.30, paragraph (d)(5)(ii). Section

225.30(d) was promulgated in

accordance with section 8 of the Indian

Mineral Development Act of 1982 (Pub.

L. 97–382, 96 Stat. 1938) 25 U.S.C. 2107.

Need for Correction

As published, the final regulations

contain an error of preposition which

may prove to be misleading and is in

need of correction for purposes of

clarification.

Correction of Publication

Accordingly, the publication on

March 30, 1994 of the final regulations

(25 CFR part 225) which were the

subject of FR Doc. 94–7315, is corrected

as follows:

§ 225.30 [Corrected]

Paragraph 1. On page 14975, in the

third column, in § 225.30, paragraph (d),

subparagraph (5)(ii), ‘‘by the Secretary’’

is amended to read ‘‘from the

Secretary.’’

Ada E. Deer,

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. 95–4585 Filed 2–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–02–P