alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 444.3 Unfair or deceptive cosigner practices. ( a ) In connection with the extension of credit to consumers in or affecting commerce, as commerce is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, it is: ( 1 ) A deceptive act or practice within the meaning of section 5 of that Act for a lender or retail installment seller, directly or indirectly, to misrepresent the nature or extent of cosigner liability to any person.
( 2 ) An unfair act or practice within the meaning of section 5 of that Act for a lender or retail installment seller, directly or indirectly, to obligate a cosigner unless the cosigner is informed prior to becoming obligated, which in the case of open end credit shall mean prior to the time that the agreement creating the cosigner's liability for future charges is executed, of the nature of his or her liability as cosigner.
( b ) Any lender or retail installment seller who complies with the preventive requirements in paragraph (c) of this section does not violate paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) To prevent these unfair or deceptive acts or practices, a disclosure, consisting of a separate document that shall contain the following statement and no other, shall be given to the cosigner prior to becoming obligated, which in the case of open end credit shall mean prior to the time that the agreement creating the cosigner's liability for future charges is executed:
Notice to Cosigner You are being asked to guarantee this debt. Think carefully before you do. If the borrower doesn't pay the debt, you will have to. Be sure you can afford to pay if you have to, and that you want to accept this responsibility. You may have to pay up to the full amount of the debt if the borrower does not pay. You may also have to pay late fees or collection costs, which increase this amount. The creditor can collect this debt from you without first trying to collect from the borrower. The creditor can use the same collection methods against you that can be used against the borrower, such as suing you, garnishing your wages, etc. If this debt is ever in default, that fact may become a part of *your* credit record. This notice is not the contract that makes you liable for the debt.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3728 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make members of health 

care sharing ministries eligible to establish health savings accounts. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 19, 2011 

Mr. SCHOCK (for himself and Mr. POSEY) 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 

members of health care sharing ministries eligible to 

establish health savings accounts. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. MEMBERS OF HEALTH CARE SHARING MIN4 ISTRIES ELIGIBLE TO ESTABLISH HEALTH 

5 SAVINGS ACCOUNTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 223 of the Internal Rev7 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

8 following new subsection: 

9 ‘‘(i) APPLICATION TO HEALTH CARE SHARING MIN10 ISTRIES.—For purposes of this section, membership in a 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3728 IH

1 health care sharing ministry (as defined in section 

2 5000A(d)(2)(B)(ii)) shall be treated as coverage under a 

3 high deductible health plan.’’. 

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

5 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

6 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
* 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 9, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50692 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CARLOS GARCIA, also known as Jorge Gonzales, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-2329-ALL

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Carlos Garcia raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF O. C. V. AND M. 

S. V., JR., 

 

 Appellant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00355-CV

Appeal from the

383rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2012DCM10912)

O R D E R

On June 9, 2016, the Court received and filed the supplemental clerk’s record as 

requested in its order issued March 28, 2016. The appeal is therefore reinstated. The 

Appellant’s brief shall be due thirty days after the date the hearing record on the inaccuracies of 

the reporter’s record is filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 9

th day of June, 2016.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Hughes, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

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

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Catcher Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB
for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Jeff Gilford, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18,
Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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.



|                     |  |  |  |                           
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------
|                     |  |  |  |                           
|                     |  | 
|Date: April 26, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Jeff Gilford          
|                     |  |  |  | Jeff Gilford              
|                     |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer of
|                     |  |  |  | Catcher Holdings, Inc.    

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
From: French, Chuck <French.Chuck@epa.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 2:09 PM

To: Chin, Conrad; Mulrine, Phil; Bradley Nelson

Subject: FW: Question regarding costs of disposing ACI mercury control wastes

See below info regarding ACI disposal costs from MATS.

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

From: Eschmann, Erich

Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 1:38 PM

To: Maxwell, Bill; Hutson, Nick

Cc: Stevens, William

Subject: RE: Question regarding costs of disposing ACI mercury control wastes

For cases where a baghouse is added, our S&L model assumes that the existing ESP stays in service

collecting uncontaminated fly ash. Only the much smaller tonnage of ACI sorbent is costed at an

incremental $30/ton for disposal. This is the same $/ton dis posal cost used for FGD waste in cases

where FGD is added for other reasons.

For cases where a baghouse is not added, our S&L model assumes that the existing ESP collects

contaminated fly ash. The total fly ash plus ACI sorbent tonnage is costed at an i ncremental $30/ton for

disposal.

We do not refer to ACI

- contaminated fly ash as “hazardous” in the model documentation, and I’m not

certain the assumed $30/ton disposal cost would represent hazardous waste disposal.

Erich Eschmann

Clean Air Markets Di vision

U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation

202 343

- 9128 Phone

202 343

- 2359 Fax

eschmann.erich@epa.gov
----

**EXHIBIT**
** 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION        OF**

**CHIEF        EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT        TO**

**18        U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

| (1) | the                  Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter                  ended                  September 30, 2006 as filed on the date hereof with the Securities                  and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the                  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange                  Act of                  1934, as amended; and |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| /s/                  Chang H. Ahn        |   |
|------------------------------------------|--------|
| Chang                  H. Ahn            |   |
| Chief                  Executive Officer |   |

----
#### Banque De Salonique, Appellant, v. Leon Feldmann et al., Respondents.

No opinion. Present- — -Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Yan Yoorhis, JJ. [Order granted reargument and on reargument denied plaintiff’s motion to preclude on condition.] [See *post,*p. 778.]
§ 1700.4 Effective date of standards. ( a ) The FR document promulgating a regulation establishing a child protection packaging standard shall indicate the standard's effective date. Section 9 of the act specifies that the effective date shall not be sooner than 180 days or later than 1 year from the date the standard is promulgated in the Federal Register unless the Commission, for good cause found, determines that an earlier effective date is in the public interest and publishes in the Federal Register the reason for such finding, in which case such earlier effective date shall apply.
( b ) Upon becoming effective, a child protection packaging standard shall apply only to household substances packaged on and after its effective date.
IB 

House Calendar No. 158

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2523

[Report No. 108–447] 

To designate the United States courthouse located at 125 Bull Street in 

Savannah, Georgia, as the ‘‘Tomochichi United States Courthouse’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 19, 2003

Mr. BURNS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure 

MARCH 25, 2004

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse located at 125 

Bull Street in Savannah, Georgia, as the ‘‘Tomochichi 

United States Courthouse’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The United States courthouse located at 125 Bull 

5 Street in Savannah, Georgia, shall be known and des6 ignated as the ‘‘Tomochichi United States Courthouse’’. 
2

•HR 2523 RH 

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the United 

4 States courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

5 to be a reference to the ‘‘Tomochichi United States Court6 house’’. 

House Calendar No. 158

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2523

[Report No. 108–447] 

A BILL

To designate the United States courthouse located 

‘‘Tomochichi United States Courthouse’’. at 125 Bull Street in Savannah, Georgia, as the 

MARCH 25, 2004

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed
#### § 12.400 Scope and applicability of rules.

The rules set forth in this subpart are applicable to proceedings forwarded pursuant to § 12.26 (b) and (c) of these rules. Except as provided in §§ 12.106(e) and 12.403(b) of these rules, the rules set forth in this subpart are not applicable to proceedings forwarded pursuant to § 12.26(a) of the Reparation Rules.

[49 FR 6621, Feb. 22, 1984; 49 FR 15070, Apr. 17, 1984]
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

ROBERT LEE OLIVAREZ, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0651 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2001-009119

The Honorable Sally Schneider Duncan, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Robert Lee Olivarez, Florence

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones, Vice Chief Judge Peter B. Swann, and 

Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court.

FILED 1-3-2019
STATE v. OLIVAREZ

Decision of the Court

2

P E R C U R I A M:

¶1 Robert Olivarez seeks review of the superior court’s order 

dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Arizona 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is the petitioner’s second successive

petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this Court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 576-77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s 

burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the 

petition. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that the petitioner has not shown any abuse of 

discretion. 

¶4 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.
No. II-16-004 March 3, 2016

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417 

Joey Ledford 404-997-4416 

ASLB to Hear Arguments on Nuclear Units under Construction in Georgia 

A three-judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has scheduled oral arguments for March 15 

in Augusta on a petition related to a license amendment for Vogtle Units 3 and 4, two nuclear reactors 

currently under construction near Waynesboro.

The two new Vogtle units are being built by Southern Nuclear Operating Co. at the same site 

where the company currently operates Units 1 and 2.

The ASLB is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s independent body that conducts 

adjudicatory hearings and decides legal challenges to the agency’s licensing and enforcement actions.

The oral argument session in Augusta is scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. on March 15 in the U.S. 

Bankruptcy Court, Federal Justice Center, Plaza Building, 600 James Brown Boulevard. Only 

designated representatives of the petitioner (Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and its chapter,

Concerned Citizens of Shell Bluff), Southern Nuclear and the NRC staff will be permitted to present 

oral argument to the three judges.

The petition opposes the license amendment granted by the NRC in December that changes 

concrete wall tolerances for the two new Vogtle units. The petition contends that the granting of the 

amendment does not meet industry standards, does not meet worker radiation protection standards and 

has a disproportionate impact on Shell Bluff residents near the site. 

The public is welcome to attend, but space is limited and only the designated parties will be 

allowed to speak. No signs or other forms of demonstration are permitted in the courtroom and people 

wishing to attend should contact the ASLB’s Cooper Strickland at 301-415-5880 or

Cooper.Strickland@nrc.gov by March 9 to provide their names for security purposes. Anyone attending 

is urged to arrive at least 15 minutes early to pass through security and should have a valid photo ID. In 

addition, no mobile phones are permitted in the Federal Justice Center. 

A transcript of the arguments will be publicly available sometime after the session is completed.
§ 1610.8 Reporting results. ( a ) The reported result shall be the classification before or after refurbishing, whichever is the more severe; and based on this result, the textile shall be placed in the proper final classification as described in § 1610.4.
( b ) *Test result codes.* The following are definitions for the test result codes, which shall be used for recording flammability results for each specimen that is burned. ( 1 ) For Plain Surface Textile Fabrics: ( i ) DNI Did not ignite.
( ii ) IBE Ignited, but extinguished.
( iii ) _._sec. Actual burn time measured and recorded by the timing device.
( 2 ) For Raised Surface Textile Fabrics: ( i ) _._SFBB Time in seconds, surface flash base burn starting at places other than the point of impingement as a result of surface flash.
( ii ) _._SFBB poi Time in seconds, surface flash base burn starting at the point of impingement.
( iii ) _._SFBB poi* Time in seconds, surface flash base burn possibly starting at the point of impingement. The asterisk is accompanied by the following statement: “Unable to make absolute determination as to source of base burns.” This statement is added to the result of any specimen if there is a question as to origin of the base burn.
( iv ) _._SF only Time in seconds, surface flash only. No damage to the base fabric.
( v ) SF poi Surface flash, at the point of impingement only (equivalent to “did not ignite” for plain surfaces).
( vi ) SF uc Surface flash, under the stop thread, but does not break the stop thread.
( vii ) SF pw Surface flash, part way. No time shown because the surface flash did not reach the stop thread.
[73 FR 15640, Mar. 25, 2008, as amended at 88 FR 73233, Oct. 25, 2023]
August 3, 2006


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 - Fifth Street - N.W.
Washington, DC  20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

This letter authorizes the following representatives of The Clorox Company,
acting singly, to execute and file with you on my behalf future Forms 3,
4 and 5 respecting my holdings of equity securities of The Clorox Company:

Laura Stein, Senior Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary
Angela Hilt, Senior Corporate Counsel
Cheryl Brice, Assistant Secretary

Sincerely,


/s/ Thomas Johnson
Name:	Thomas Johnson
Title:	Vice President - Controller
	and Chief Accounting Officer
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Francis J. Benz, Respondent, against Knights of St. John Club et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

*696Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Bergan and Coon, JJ., concur. [See *post,*p. 967.]
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 89 FR 71805, Sept. 4, 2024.

§ 1.74 Futures commission merchant acceptance for clearing. ( a ) Each futures commission merchant that is a clearing member of a derivatives clearing organization shall coordinate with each derivatives clearing organization on which it clears to establish systems that enable the futures commission merchant, or the derivatives clearing organization acting on its behalf, to accept or reject each trade submitted to the derivatives clearing organization for clearing by or for the futures commission merchant or a customer of the futures commission merchant as quickly as would be technologically practicable if fully automated systems were used; and
( b ) Each futures commission merchant that is a clearing member of a derivatives clearing organization shall accept or reject each trade submitted by or for it or its customers as quickly as would be technologically practicable if fully automated systems were used; a clearing futures commission merchant may meet this requirement by: ( 1 ) Establishing systems to pre-screen orders for compliance with criteria specified by the clearing futures commission merchant;
( 2 ) Establishing systems that authorize a derivatives clearing organization to accept or reject on its behalf trades that meet, or fail to meet, criteria specified by the clearing futures commission merchant; or
( 3 ) Establishing systems that enable the clearing futures commission merchant to communicate to the derivatives clearing organization acceptance or rejection of each trade as quickly as would be technologically practicable if fully automated systems were used.
[77 FR 21307, Apr. 9, 2012]
#### Island Surgical Supply Co., Appellant, v Allstate Insurance Company et al., Respondents.

[820 NYS2d 854]

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feinman, J.), dated April 14, 2005, which granted the motion of the defendants Allstate Insurance Company, Metropolitan Eroperty and Casualty Insurance Company, Government Employees Insurance Company, St. Faul’s Travelers, Frogressive Casualty Insurance Company, Halcyon Insurance Company, Frogressive Northeastern Insurance Company, Frogressive Northern Insurance Company, Frogressive Northwestern Insurance Company, Progressive Specialty Insurance Company, United Financial Casualty Company, and National Continental Insurance Company, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and 3013 to dismiss the complaint and denied its cross application for leave to replead, and (2) an order of the same court dated May 4, 2005, amending the order dated April 14, 2005, to correctly identify the moving defendants.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The complaint was properly dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and 3013 because the allegations were vague, conclusory, and indefinite as to the alleged breach of numerous contracts by the defendant insurance carriers *(see Hart v Scott,*8 AD3d 532 [2004]; *Stoianoff v Gahona,*248 AD2d 525 [1998], *appeal dismissed*92 NY2d 844 [1998], *cert denied*525 US 953 [1998]; *see also Maldonado v Olympia Mech. Piping & Heating Corp.,*8 AD3d 348, 350 [2004]; *Steinblatt v Imagine Media,*304 AD2d 648 [2003]; *Atkinson v Mobil Oil Corp.,*205 AD2d 719, 720 [1994]; *cf. Leon v Martinez,*84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]). More*825over, “leave to plead again shall not be granted unless the court is satisfied that [a party opposing a motion to dismiss] has good ground to support [a] cause of action” (CPLR 3211 [former (e)]; *cf..*L 2005, ch 616, §§ 1-2, eff Jan. 1, 2006, and removing the requirement that the party seeking leave to replead demonstrate “good ground,” but applicable only to “actions and proceedings commenced on or after such effective date”). To establish a “good ground” sufficient to support a request for leave to replead, a plaintiff must proffer evidence, in the form of affidavits of those with direct knowledge of the facts (see *Lesesne v Lesesne,*292 AD2d 507, 509 [2002]; *see also Nadkarni v North Shore-Long Is. Jewish Health Sys.,*21 AD3d 354, 355 [2005]; *Latture v Smith,*1 AD3d 408, 409 [2003]; *Mehlman v Gold,*183 AD2d 634 [1992]). Here, the plaintiff proffered no such evidence, and made no specific argument as to why such good ground existed. Thus, the Supreme Court providently denied its cross application for leave to replead. Prudenti, P.J., Mastro, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.