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

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3557 

To require the country of origin of certain special immigrant religious workers 

to extend reciprocal immigration treatment to nationals of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 2, 2011 

Mr. KING of Iowa (for himself, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. ROSS of Florida, and Mr. 

COBLE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To require the country of origin of certain special immigrant 

religious workers to extend reciprocal immigration treatment to nationals of the United States. 

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 ‘‘Religious Worker Visa 

5 Reciprocity Act of 2011’’. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3557 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIRING RECIPROCAL IMMIGRATION TREAT2 MENT. 

3 Section 204(a)(1)(G) of the Immigration and Nation4 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(G)) is amended by adding 

5 at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(iii) Beginning on October 1, 2012, no petition may 

7 be approved for classification of an alien as a special immi8 grant under section 101(a)(27)(C) if the Secretary of 

9 Homeland Security has determined that the country of the 

10 alien’s nationality— 

11 ‘‘(I) is identified as a ‘Country of Particular 

12 Concern’ or a country where religious freedom is of 

13 significant interest in the 2010 International Reli14 gious Freedom Report; or 

15 ‘‘(II) does not extend reciprocal immigration 

16 treatment to nationals of the United States who are 

17 seeking resident status in order to work in a reli18 gious vocation or occupation.’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
January 21, 2011

Gerardo Rios

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

‐ 3901

rios.gerardo@ epa .gov

Sent Via e

‐ mail and U.S. Mail

Re: EPA

‐ R09

‐ OAR

‐ 2010

‐ 1078

Revision to the South Coast Portion of the California State Implementation Plan, CPV

Sentinel Energy Project AB 1318 Tracking System

Dear Mr. Rios:

On behalf of California Communities Against Toxics, Communities for a Better Environment, and

Natural Resources Defense Council (“Air Quality Advocates”) we request a 60

‐ day extension to the

submit comments in the above

‐ captioned rulemaking.

The issues involved in this rulemaking are very complex and the allotted 30 day period is inadequate

to prepare the comments necessary to advance the important public interest at stake in this

rulemaking. Not only are the issues involved complex, we are currently in the process of

commenting on the EPA’s proposed action on the South Coast portion of the PM 2.5 SIP, as well as

the rulemaking at the South Coast Air Quality Management District for proposed Rule 1315, the rule

that further implements the AB 1318 Tracking System. Given these circumstances, 30 days is simply

inadequate to submit thoughtful comments in this matter.

We therefore respectfully request that the EPA use its discretionary authority to extend the public

comment period to April 14, 2011, for the above captioned rulemaking.

Sincerely,

Angela Johnson Meszaros Shana Lazerow Adrian Martinez

On behalf of Maya Golden

‐ Krasner On behalf of

California Communities On behalf of Natural Resources Defense

Against Toxics Communities for a Better Council

Environment

Cc: Laura Yannayon, yannayon.laura@epa.gov
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Mark H. McKinnies, as Chief Financial Officer of ADA-Es, Inc. (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 Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (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/ Mark H. McKinnies
|Name:                 |  | Mark H. McKinnies      
|Title:                |  | Chief Financial Officer
|Date:                 |  | August 16, 2010
Phillip L, Kiddoo

Air Pollution Control Offìcer 

# GNnrr BESIN 

# I.]NrnrpD 

# AIR 

# POIIUTION 

# COxrnoL DISTRICT 157 Short Street, Bishop, 

### Califomia 9351,4-3537

760-872-8271. Fax: 760-872-61.09


### B/O #160516-05a Ill4ay 

### 16,2076 

### I HEREBY CERTIFY that at a regular meeting 

### of the Great Basin Unif,red

### Air Pollution Control 

### District Goveming Board held 

### in the 

### Mono County Supervisors Chambers, 

### Bridgeport, California on 

### May 16, 2016 an order was 

### duly made and entered as

### follows: AcsNpe 

### Irev #5n: CoNsnNr 

### AcnNua A motion was made 

### by Stump and seconded 

### by Hames approving consent agenda 

### item a as

### follows: 

## a) Approval of the

### April 13, 2016 

### Governing Board meeting minutes


### Ayes: Board Members

# - Stump, 

### Griffiths, Rawson, Bacon 

### Noes: Ø 

### Abstain: Bacon, Johnston Absent: 

### Kingsley 

### Motion carried 410 and so ordered.


### ATTEST: 

# It \,_

# h-,- /'_uri4,,

# -

# --- Tori DeHaven, 

### Clerk of the 

### Board
### subpart 1—national center for advancing translational sciences

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 112–74, div. F, title II, §221(a)(1)(A), Dec. 23, 2011, 125 Stat. 1086, substituted "advancing translational sciences" for "research resources" in subpart heading.
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Anthony Schoate, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 71-190;

Fifth District

June 13, 1974.

Robert E. Farrell, of Mt. Vernon, and James R. Streicker, of Chicago, both of the State Appellate Defender’s Office, for appellant.

Robert H. Rice, State’s Attorney, of Belleville (John Goodwin, Jr., Assistant State’s Attorney, of counsel), for the People.

PER CURIAM:

Defendant pled guilty to the crime of burglary in the circuit court of St. Clair County and was sentenced to a minimum of 3 years and a maximum of 5 years in the penitentiary.

*4The record does not show an adequate inquiry by the court into the voluntariness of the plea, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 402(b) (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 110A, sec. 402(b)).

 The total lack of any reference to how or if this inquiry was made requires reversal and remandment.

 We therefore reverse and remand with directions to allow the appellant to plead anew if he so desires. (See *People v. Horne,*21 Ill.App.3d 10.) In the event appellant chooses to not plead anew the judgment of the circuit court of St. Clair County shall be affirmed in all respects except the minimum term of the sentence which is reduced to 1 year and 8 months to comply with the Unified Code of Corrections. Ill. Rev. Stat, ch. 38, sec. 1005 — 8 — 1(c)(3).

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Mr. JUSTICE G. MORAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
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 State

          - [Public Notice 4892] 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Keith D. Miller, Executive Secretary of the committee at 202-261-8200. 

Dated: November 15, 2004. 

Keith D. Miller, 

Executive Secretary, Overseas Schools Advisory Council, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 04-26294 Filed 11-29-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-24-P
#### • Jack Impellizzeri et al., Respondents, v. Frederick Haug et al., Defendants. Frederick Haug, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. Abraham Gottlieb, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent, and George Lassen, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. Hughes, Flamman & Simpson, Appellants.

In an action to recover damages arising out of a collision between two automobiles, a certain law firm appeared as attorneys for the two defendants, Haug and Lassen, interposed answers for them and also served a third-party complaint on said Lassen, on behalf of Haug. The said firm had undertaken to represent said defendants at the request of an insurance carrier, which had issued a liability policy covering Haug. Thereafter, the carrier disclaimed all obligation to Lassen and instructed the said firm to void or withdraw its appearance for him. The appeal is by said law firm from an order on reargument adhering to an original decision denying its motion for leave to withdraw said appearance, without prejudice to or adjudication of the rights of any of the parties under any contract of insurance. Order modified by striking therefrom the second ordering paragraph thereof and by striking from the first ordering paragraph thereof everything following the word “reargument”, and by substituting in lieu thereof the following: “the motion is granted to the extent that the firm of Hughes, Flamman & Simpson be permitted to withdraw as attorneys for George Lassen in this action; and that the motion is otherwise denied.” As so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs. The interests of the carrier and Haug are in apparent conflict with those of Lassen. The court should not withhold approval of counsel’s application to withdraw from this anomalous situation. Adel, Anting p. J., Wenzel, MaeCrate, Schmidt and Beldoek, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 227 (Friday, November 26, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 69026]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26094]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending November 12, 2004

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: OST-2004-19617.
    Date Filed: November 8, 2004.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: November 29, 2004.
    Description: Application of Atlantic Express, Inc. requesting a 
certificate of public convenience and necessity to engage in scheduled 
foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between any 
point or points in the United States via intermediate points to a point 
or points in The Netherlands and beyond; from points behind the United 
States via the United States and intermediate points to a point or 
points in Germany and beyond; and between any point or points in the 
United States and any point or point in the United Kingdom (other than 
London's Heathrow or Gatwick Airports).

Andrea M. Jenkins,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 04-26094 Filed 11-24-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
### SUBCHAPTER I—RECORDS
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 24, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 68436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26170]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 4907]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``In the Russian Tradition: A Historic Collection of 
20th Century Russian Paintings''

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``In the Russian Tradition: A Historic 
Collection of 20th Century Russian Paintings,'' imported from abroad 
for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural 
significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement 
with the foreign owner. I also determine that the exhibition or display 
of the exhibit objects at the Smithsonian Institution S. Dillon Ripley 
Center International Gallery, Washington, DC, from on or about December 
15, 2004, to on or about March 19, 2005; Museum of Russian Art, 
Minneapolis, MN, from on or about April 15, 2005, to on or about July 
31, 2005, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in 
the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered 
to be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Julianne Simpson, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State, (telephone: 
202/619-6529). The address is Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th 
Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: November 19, 2004.
C. Miller Crouch,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural 
Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 04-26170 Filed 11-23-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alfred Royal, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 305]

Mercure, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lament, J.), rendered February 18, 2005 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant was charged in a five-count indictment with various crimes stemming from his possession and sale of heroin. Following a pretrial suppression hearing, County Court (Herrick, J.) denied defendant’s motion to suppress the drugs and drug paraphernalia that had been seized. Defendant thereafter pleaded guilty to attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. Prior to sentencing, defendant moved to withdraw his guilty plea and reopen the suppression hearing on the basis that he had been denied the effective assistance of counsel. As relevant here, defendant claimed that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered because his attorney misinformed him regarding the possible term of incarceration that he faced. Supreme Court denied the motion and sentenced defendant to 3 to 9 years in prison. Defendant now appeals.

*1082We affirm. Prior to pleading guilty, defendant indicated that he understood his rights, had fully discussed the case and potential defenses with his attorney, was satisfied with his attorney’s representation and was entering his guilty plea freely and voluntarily *(see People v La Caille,*26 AD3d 592, 593 [2006], *lv denied*6 NY3d 835 [2006]; *People v Henning,*2 AD3d 979, 980 [2003], *lv denied 2*NY3d 740 [2004]). The record also reveals that defense counsel, who conferred with defendant immediately after Supreme Court detailed the agreed-upon sentence, obtained a very favorable plea bargain which significantly reduced defendant’s prison exposure. Under these circumstances, we conclude that defendant was afforded meaningful representation and that his plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary *(see People v Bolden,*14 AD3d 934, 935 [2005], *lv denied*4 NY3d 796 [2005]; *People v Thigpen,*12 AD3d 934, 935 [2004]; *People v Stone,*9 AD3d 498, 499 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 712 [2004]). Defendant’s remaining arguments are precluded by his valid waiver of his right to appeal *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]).

Crew III, Spain, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
### SUBCHAPTER III—RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, AND ASSETS OF CORPORATION
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00852- CR

Gr egory Lopez , Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F CO MAL CO UNTY, 207 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. CR2012 -39 6, H ONO RAB LE GARY L. STEEL, JUDGE P RESIDING
O R D E R A N D M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
P ER CURIAM

On September 19, 2014, this Court g rante d appellant’ s second motion for extension of time to file appellant’ s brief and order ed that appellant’ s brief be filed no later than November 17, 2014. I n this Court’s order , we notified appellant’ s appointed counsel that a failure to comply with the orde r would re sult in t he re fer ral of this ca se to the trial court for a hea ring under Rule 38.8( b) of the Te x as Rules of Appe llate Proce dure. To date, the brie f has not bee n filed.

W e t h er ef

o re abate the cause and rema nd it to the trial court to hold a hear ing in
acc ordanc e with Rule 38.8. See Tex. R
. Ap p . P
. 3 8 .8(b)( 2), (3). The trial court shall conduct a hear ing to deter

mine whether appellant sti l l wi s h es to prosec ute this appea l and, if so, whether appointed counsel has abandone d the appea l. See id
. The trial court shall make appropr iate finding s and rec ommendations. I f appellant desires to appea l and prese nt counsel is not prepa red to prosec ute this appea l in a timely fashion, the court shall appoint substitut e counsel who wi l l ef fe cti velyre p re s ent appellant on appea l. See id
. Following the hear ing, the trial court shall order the

appropr iate supplemental reporter’s and cler k’s rec ords, including any order and finding s, to be prepa red a nd forwa rded to the Cler

k of this Court no later than De cembe r 19, 2014. See id
. I t is so ordered this 4th day of De cembe r 2014.

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton, and F ield Abated a nd Remanded Filed: De cembe r 4, 2014 Do Not Publish

2
Company Name Utelite

Site Name Shale Processing

Company ID - 499

Site ID - 10676

2006 SOx

Tons/year

1b 58.408

1a 0.001

3b 57.549

3a 0.002

2b 58.536

2a 0.001

174.497

16-19 & 21 0.949

175.446

OXIDES OF SULFUR ANNUAL EMISSION REPORT

Point Source ID Description of Process Emission Factor Method How sulfur content was calculated

This form is to be used by sources that have emitted 100 tons or more of SOx in any calendar year after 1999, and that are not subject to acid rain 

continuous monitoring reporting requirements (40CFR Part 75). 

Kiln #1, coal AP-42, Section 1.1 From sulfur and heat content

Kiln #1, natural gas AP-42, Section 1.4 AP-42 Estimate

Kiln #4, coal AP-42, Section 1.1 From sulfur and heat content

Kiln #4, natural gas AP-42, Section 1.4 AP-42 Estimate

Exhaust Emissions AP-42, Volume II AP-42 Estimate

Kiln #3, coal AP-42, Section 1.1 From sulfur and heat content

Kiln #3, natural gas AP-42, Section 1.4 AP-42 Estimate

SUBTOTAL

TOTAL
### §108. Item and item of supply

In this subtitle, the terms "item" and "item of supply"—

(1) mean an individual part, component, subassembly, assembly, or subsystem integral to a major system, and other property which may be replaced during the service life of the system, including spare parts and replenishment spare parts; but

(2) do not include packaging or labeling associated with shipment or identification of an item.

(Pub. L. 111–350, §3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3680.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 108 | 41:259(c)(8), (9). | June 30, 1949, ch. 288, title III, §309(c)(8), (9), as added Pub. L. 98–369, title VII, §2711(a)(3), July 18, 1984, 98 Stat. 1180; Pub. L. 98–577, title V, §504(a)(4), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 3086; Pub. L. 103–355, title I, §1551, Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3299. |
| | 41:403(10) ("item", "item of supply"). | Pub. L. 93–400, §4(10) ("item", "item of supply"), formerly §4(11), as added Pub. L. 98–577, title I, §102(3), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 3067; redesignated as §4(10), Pub. L. 100–679, §3(c), Nov. 17, 1988, 102 Stat. 4056; Pub. L. 103–355, title VIII, §8001(b)(1), (2), (4), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3386. |

Section
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 228 (Monday, November 29, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69394-69395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26221]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Forum on Education Abroad, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 20, 2004, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Forum on Education Abroad, 
Inc. (``Forum'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with 
the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) 
the name and principal place of business of the standards development 
organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development 
activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking 
the Act's provisions limiting the recover of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: Forum on 
Education Abroad, Inc., Northampton, MA. The nature and scope of 
Forum's standards development activities are: (1) To develop and 
present voluntary consensus standards for education abroad programs, 
for domestic colleges and universities and entities in other nations 
that provide or partner in providing education abroad programs for 
students from U.S. colleges and universities; and (2) to present

[[Page 69395]]

standards and methods for assessing performance against the standards 
that can be used by the smallest and simplest organizations interested 
in self-improvement, through to the largest and most complex 
organizations in the education abroad field.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-26221 Filed 11-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4416-11-M
#### Bradley Cafeteria, Inc., Appellant, v. Price Enterprises, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. No opinion. Present — Peek, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Breitel, JJ.