alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S. Con. Res. 46 Agreed to October 1, 2020

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That in the enrollment of S. 2330, an Act to amend the 

Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act to provide for 

congressional oversight of the board of directors of the United 

States Olympic and Paralympic Committee and to protect amateur 

athletes from emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, and for other 

purposes, the Secretary of the Senate shall— 

(1) in subsection (b)(2)(D) of section 220504 of title 36, 

United States Code, as amended by section 6(b)(2) of the Act, 

strike ‘‘percent’’; 

(2) in subsection (a)(1)(H) of section 220541 of title 36, 

United States Code, as added by section 8(a)(1)(B) of the Act, 

strike ‘‘in a manner than’’ and insert ‘‘in a manner that’’; 

(3) in subsection (f)(4)(B) of section 220541 of title 36 United 

States Code, as added by section 8(a)(1)(E) of the Act, insert 

‘‘and the Committee on the Judiciary’’ after ‘‘the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce’’; 

(4) amend paragraph (1) of section 220541(g) of title 36, 

United States Code, as added by section 8(a)(1)(E) of the Act, 

to read as follows: 

‘‘(1) MANDATORY PAYMENTS.— 

‘‘(A) FISCAL YEAR 2021.—On January 4, 2021, the corporation shall make a mandatory payment of $20,000,000 

to the Center for operating costs of the Center for fiscal 

year 2021. 

‘‘(B) SUBSEQUENT FISCAL YEARS.—For fiscal year 2022 

and each fiscal year thereafter, the corporation shall make 

a mandatory payment of $20,000,000 to the Center not 

later than the close of business on the first regular business 

day in January.’’; and 

(5) in subsection (h)(2)(C)(iii) of section 220541 of title 

36, United States Code, as added by section 8(a)(1)(E) of the 
S. Con. Res. 46—2 

Act, insert ‘‘and the Committee on the Judiciary’’ after ‘‘the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce’’. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID** 

### 07980 **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** 

### x 07980\07980_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 07980\07980_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### x 07980\07980_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07980\07980_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07980\07980_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07980\07980_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file 

### x 07980\07980_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 07980\Certification Statement Plant ID 07980.pdf Plant certification statement

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 3 No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
§ 115.166 Preservation of ability to protect detainees from contact with abusers. ( a ) Neither the agency nor any other governmental entity responsible for collective bargaining on the agency's behalf shall enter into or renew any collective bargaining agreement or other agreement that limits the agency's ability to remove alleged staff sexual abusers from contact with detainees pending the outcome of an investigation or of a determination of whether and to what extent discipline is warranted.
( b ) Nothing in this standard shall restrict the entering into or renewal of agreements that govern: ( 1 ) The conduct of the disciplinary process, as long as such agreements are not inconsistent with the provisions of §§ 115.172 and 115.176; or
( 2 ) Whether a no-contact assignment that is imposed pending the outcome of an investigation shall be expunged from or retained in the staff member's personnel file following a determination that the allegation of sexual abuse is not substantiated.
### §169. Repealed. June 25, 1948, ch. 646, §39, 62 Stat. 992, eff. Sept. 1, 1948

Section, act Aug. 22, 1914, ch. 264, §3, 38 Stat. 699, related to applicability of criminal laws. See section 13 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure.
Exhibit 99.2

        REPORT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS, ON SCHEDULE I


         We have audited the consolidated financial statements of TFC
Enterprises, Inc., as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and for each of the three
years in the period ended December 31, 1996, and have issued our report dated
March 11, 1997, except for Note 5 as to which the date is April 4, 1997. Our
audits also included the financial statement schedule listed in Item 14(a) of
this Form 10-K. This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits.

         In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above,
when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
presents fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.



Washington, DC
March 11, 1997, except
for Note 5 as to which
the date is April 4, 1997
Exhibit  32.2

                   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(b) OR
                     RULE 15D-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SEC.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with  the  quarterly  report  of  Sharp Holding Corporation (the
"Company")  on  Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George
Sharp,  Principal  Financial  Officer  of  the  Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Sec.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002,  that:

     (1)  Based on my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

Date:    AUGUST 20, 2004

/S/  GEORGE SHARP
-----------------
GEORGE SHARP
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF SHARP HOLDING CORPORATION


                                       23
<PAGE>
§ 51.54 Discriminatory purpose and effect. ( a ) *Discriminatory purpose.* A change affecting voting is considered to have a discriminatory purpose under section 5 if it is enacted or sought to be administered with any purpose of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. The term “purpose” in section 5 includes any discriminatory purpose. 42 U.S.C. 1973c. The Attorney General's evaluation of discriminatory purpose under section 5 is guided by the analysis in *Village of Arlington Heights* v. *Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.,* 429 U.S. 252 (1977).
( b ) *Discriminatory effect.* A change affecting voting is considered to have a discriminatory effect under section 5 if it will lead to a retrogression in the position of members of a racial or language minority group (*i.e.,* will make members of such a group worse off than they had been before the change) with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise. *Beer* v. *United States,* 425 U.S. 130, 140-42 (1976).
( c ) *Benchmark.* ( 1 ) In determining whether a submitted change is retrogressive the Attorney General will normally compare the submitted change to the voting standard, practice, or procedure in force or effect at the time of the submission. If the existing standard, practice, or procedure upon submission was not in effect on the jurisdiction's applicable date for coverage (specified in the Appendix) and is not otherwise legally enforceable under section 5, it cannot serve as a benchmark, and, except as provided in paragraph (c)(4) of this section, the comparison shall be with the last legally enforceable standard, practice, or procedure used by the jurisdiction.
( 2 ) The Attorney General will make the comparison based on the conditions existing at the time of the submission.
( 3 ) The implementation and use of an unprecleared voting change subject to section 5 review does not operate to make that unprecleared change a benchmark for any subsequent change submitted by the jurisdiction.
( 4 ) Where at the time of submission of a change for section 5 review there exists no other lawful standard, practice, or procedure for use as a benchmark (*e.g.,* where a newly incorporated college district selects a method of election) the Attorney General's determination will necessarily center on whether the submitted change was designed or adopted for the purpose of discriminating against members of racial or language minority groups.
( d ) *Protection of the ability to elect.* Any change affecting voting that has the purpose of or will have the effect of diminishing the ability of any citizens of the United States on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group to elect their preferred candidates of choice denies or abridges the right to vote within the meaning of section 5. 42 U.S.C. 1973c.
[Order No. 3262-2011, 76 FR 21248, Apr. 15, 2011]
Exhibit 32.1

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

         In connection  with the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of North Shore
Capital IV, Inc., (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2004, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),  I, Gerard Werner,  Chief
Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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  consolidated  results of operations of the Company for the
periods presented.

Dated: October 14, 2005


/s/ Gerard Werner
Chief Executive Officer
October 14, 2005



This  certification  has been  furnished  solely  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
§ 543.15 Legal aid program. ( a ) A legal aid program which is funded or approved by the Bureau is expected to provide a broad range of legal assistance to inmates. Staff shall allow these programs generally to operate with the same independence as privately retained attorneys. The Warden shall refer a request or decision to terminate or restrict a program, or individual participants in a program, to the Regional Counsel.
( b ) In order to promote the inmate-program relationship, the Warden shall give those students or legal assistants working in legal aid programs the same status as attorneys with respect to visiting and correspondence except where specific exceptions are made in this section and in part 540 of this chapter.
( c ) An attorney or law school professor shall supervise students and legal assistants participating in the program. The supervisor shall provide the Warden with a signed statement accepting professional responsibility for acts of each student or legal assistant affecting the institution. The Warden may require each student or legal assistant to complete and sign a personal history statement and a pledge to abide by Bureau regulations and institution guidelines. If necessary to maintain security or good order in the institution, the Warden may prohibit a student or legal assistant from visiting or corresponding with an inmate.
EXHIBIT 32















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 New Mexico Software, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned principal executive officer and the principal financial officer of the Company, hereby 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 results of operations of the Company.





Date:  November 12, 2010








/s/ Richard F. Govatski


Richard F Govatski, President


(Principal Executive Officer)








/s/ Teresa B. Dickey


Teresa B. Dickey, Treasurer


(Principal Financial Officer)
Exhibit 32-1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection
with the Annual Report of The Goldfield Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John H.
Sottile, Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



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

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



/s/    JOHN H.
SOTTILEJohn H. SottileChairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)March 24, 2008
#### Betty Klein, Appellant, v. Herman Klein, Respondent.

No opinion. Settle order on notice. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Manqueen Corporation, Appellant, v. Reclamation and Building Corporation et al., Respondents.

No opinion. The date for the examination to proceed to be fixed in the order. Settle order on notice. Present ■— Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Cohn, JJ.
§ 1318.505 Non-TVA EISs. ( a ) The NEPA compliance staff, in consultation with other interested TVA entities, will coordinate the review of any EIS provided by another Federal agency to TVA for comment.
( b ) The NEPA compliance staff, in consultation with TVA legal counsel as appropriate, will prepare comments on any such EIS and transmit them to the initiating agency (see 40 CFR 1503.2 and 1503.3).
#### § 55.22 Requirements of section 5 of the Act.

For many jurisdictions, changes in voting laws and practices will be necessary in order to comply with section 4(f)(4) or section 203(c). If a jurisdiction is subject to the preclearance requirements of section 5 (see § 55.8(b)), such changes must either be submitted to the Attorney General or be made the subject of a declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Procedures for the administration of section 5 are set forth in part 51 of this chapter.
#### Beatty *vs.*Van Brenner and others.

1. A denial *“*that the principal sum mentioned, with large arrears of interest, or any interest whatever, is due and owing to the complainant,’’ and an averment “ that a large portion of said principal sum, to wit, the sum of $500, was exacted of the said V. by the complainant, in excess of interest allowed by law, for the loan of the remaining $5000 to the said V. and that, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to receive the said sum of $500, or any interest upon tlie balance of the said principal sum,” is-not sufficient to support the defence of usury.

2. To support such defence, the usurious contract must be alleged,, and the facts or circumstances must appear, from which the court can determine the fact of usury.

*Mr. Evans*and *Mr. Eixon,*for complainant.

*Mr. Hilton,*for defendant.

The Vice-Chancellor.

A sufficient reason why the defence of usury set up in this foreclosure suit cannot prevail is, that the defence is not sufficiently averred. The defendant, in his answer, denies *“*that the principal sum mentioned with large arrears of interest,, or any interest whatever, is due and owing to the complainant; and says, that a large portion of said principal sum, to wit, the sum of $500, was exacted of the said Van Brenner by the complainant, in excess of interest allowed by law, for the loan of the remaining $5000 to the said Van Brenner, and that, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to receive the said sum of $500, or any interest upon the balance of' the said principal sum.”

No contract for the loan of money at a usurious rate, is here alleged. It does not appear when or how the $500 was exacted, or what the particulars of the transaction were. A *conclusion*is alleged, but no facts or circumstances are-shown from which it can be seen by the court whether the conclusion is correct.

*313The rule of pleading in such, cases is well settled, and has often been enforced in this court. *Taylor*v. *Morris,*7 *C. E. Green*612; *Turrell*v. *Byard, ante p.*135.

It appears from the evidence, that $5000 was the principal sum advanced, and I think no satisfactory or conclusive proof appears, that any usurious contract was in Tact made, even if such contract had been fully alleged. The complainant is entitled to a decree for the above principal, with interest and costs.
FROM: THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, COUNTY OF LEWIS AND CLARK.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. GEOFREY GUY SWAN, Defendant.

NO. BDC-88-139 DECISION

On March 3, 1989, the Defendant was sentenced to forty (40 years for Sexual Intercourse Without Consent plus ten (10 years for the use of a weapon, to be served consecutively; The defendant shall not be eligible for parole until successfully completing the sex offender program; plus conditions when paroled. Dangerous Offender.

On April 23, 1990, the Defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Defendant was present and was represented by Morgan Queal, of the Montana Defender Project. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the Defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also to increase it if such is possible. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

After careful consideration, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the case shall be taken under advisement and a copy of the Transcript of the Change of Plea Hearing will be ordered by this Court.

It is the intention of this Division, that if, at the Change of Plea, the defendant admitted inflicting bodily injury, that the Board will affirm the original sentence imposed. If he did not, in the Change of Plea, admit to inflicting bodily injury, then this Board will have a telephone conference call to decide the issue.

*26DATED this 23rd day of April, 1990.

The probability is that the case will be remanded back to the District Court to make findings as to why the forty (40 year sentence was imposed rather than the twenty (20 years.

The record indicates that in the Change of Plea, the defendant was advised that the maximum sentence was two (2 to forty (40 years, but we find that the law requires there be bodily injury in order for the forty (40 year maximum to apply rather than the twenty (20 years.

The Change of Plea Transcript will be reviewed first, then a decision will be made whether to affirm the original sentence or to remand it back to the sentencing judge.
§ 26.4 Other execution procedures. Except to the extent a court orders otherwise: ( a ) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons or his designee shall notify the prisoner under sentence of death of the manner of execution and the date designated for execution at least 20 days in advance, except when the date follows a postponement of fewer than 20 days of a previously scheduled and noticed execution, in which case the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons or his designee shall notify the prisoner as soon as possible. If applicable law provides that the prisoner may choose among multiple manners of execution, the Director or his designee shall notify the prisoner of that option.
( b ) Beginning seven days before the designated date of execution, the prisoner shall have access only to his spiritual advisers (not to exceed two), his defense attorneys, members of his family, and the officers and employees of the institution designated in § 26.3(a)(2). Upon approval of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons or his designee, the prisoner may be granted access to such other persons as the prisoner may request.
( c ) In addition to the Marshal, the following persons shall be present at the execution: ( 1 ) Necessary personnel selected by the Marshal and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons or his designee;
( 2 ) Those attorneys of the Department of Justice whom the Deputy Attorney General determines are necessary;
( 3 ) Not more than the following numbers of persons selected by the prisoner: ( i ) One spiritual adviser;
( ii ) Two defense attorneys; and
( iii ) Three adult friends or relatives; and
( 4 ) Not more than the following numbers of persons selected by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons or his designee: ( i ) Eight citizens; and
( ii ) Ten representatives of the press.
( d ) No other person shall be present at the execution, unless leave for such person's presence is granted by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. No person younger than 18 years of age shall witness the execution.
( e ) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons or his designee should notify those individuals described in paragraph (c) of this section as soon as practicable before the designated time of execution.
( f ) No photographic or other visual or audio recording of the execution shall be permitted.
( g ) After the execution has been carried out, qualified personnel selected by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons or his designee shall conduct an examination of the body of the prisoner to determine that death has occurred and shall inform the Marshal and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons or his designee of his determination. Upon notification of the prisoner's death, the Marshal shall ensure that appropriate notice of the sentence's implementation is filed with the sentencing court.
( h ) The remains of the prisoner shall be disposed of according to procedures established by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
[57 FR 4901, Jan. 19, 1993, as amended by Order No. 4911-2020, 85 FR 75854, Nov. 27, 2020]