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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3528 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3528

    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Diphenyl sulfide.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 28, 2005

  Mr. Buyer introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Diphenyl sulfide.

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

SECTION 1. DIPHENYL SULFIDE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.29.06 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Diphenyl sulfide) is amended 
by striking ``12/31/2006'' and inserting ``12/31/2008''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 51.10 Replacement passports.

A passport issuing office may issue a replacement passport without payment of applicable fees for the reasons specified in § 51.54.
### SUBCHAPTER II—PORTS AND WATERWAYS SAFETY
###### Editorial Note on Part 982

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 982 appear at 64 FR 26640, May 14, 1999, and at 89 FR 38293, May 7, 2024.

#### § 982.163 Fraud recoveries.

Under 24 CFR part 792, the PHA may retain a portion of program fraud losses that the PHA recovers from a family or owner by litigation, court-order or a repayment agreement.

[60 FR 34695, July 3, 1995; 60 FR 43840, Aug. 23, 1995]
§ 990.195 Calculation of formula income. ( a ) *General.* For the purpose of the formula, formula income is equal to the amount of rent charged to tenants divided by the respective unit months leased, and is therefore expressed as a PUM. Formula income will be derived from a PHA's year-end financial information. The financial information used in the formula income computation will be the audited information provided by the PHA through HUD's information systems. The information will be calculated using the following PHA fiscal year-end information: ( 1 ) April 1, 2003, through March 31, 2004;
( 2 ) July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2004;
( 3 ) October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004; and
( 4 ) January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004.
( b ) *Calculation of formula income.* To calculate formula income in whole dollars, the PUM amount will be multiplied by the EUMs as described in subpart B of this part.
( c ) *Frozen at 2004 level.* After a PHA's formula income is calculated as described in paragraph (a) of this section, it will not be recalculated or inflated for fiscal years 2007 through 2009, unless a PHA can show a severe local economic hardship that is impacting the PHA's ability to maintain some semblance of its formula income (see subpart G of this part—Appeals). A PHA's formula income may be recalculated if the PHA appeals to HUD for an adjustment in its formula.
( d ) *Calculation of formula income when data are inadequate or unavailable.* When audited data are unavailable in HUD's information systems for the calculation of formula income, HUD may use an alternative methodology, including, but not limited to, certifications, hard copy reports, and communications with the respective PHAs.
( e ) *Inapplicability of 24 CFR 85.25 (as revised April 1, 2013).* Formula income is not subject to the provisions regarding program income in 24 CFR 85.25 (as revised April 1, 2013).
[70 FR 54997, Sept. 19, 2005; 70 FR 61367, Oct. 24, 2005; 80 FR 75943, Dec. 7, 2015]
#### In the Matter of Joseph Garrow.

Motion by petitioner for reargument of his application for reinstatement at an attorney and counselor at law, or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals from the order denying such application. Motion denied. Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
### §70504. Jurisdiction and venue

(a) Jurisdiction.—Jurisdiction of the United States with respect to a vessel subject to this chapter is not an element of an offense. Jurisdictional issues arising under this chapter are preliminary questions of law to be determined solely by the trial judge.

(b) Venue.—A person violating section 70503 or 70508—

(1) shall be tried in the district in which such offense was committed; or

(2) if the offense was begun or committed upon the high seas, or elsewhere outside the jurisdiction of any particular State or district, may be tried in any district.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §10(2), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1688; Pub. L. 110–407, title II, §202(b)(2), Oct. 13, 2008, 122 Stat. 4300; Pub. L. 115–91, div. A, title X, §1012(a), Dec. 12, 2017, 131 Stat. 1546.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 70504 | 46 App.:1903(f). | Pub. L. 96–350, §3(f), Sept. 15, 1980, 94 Stat. 1160; Pub. L. 99–570, title III, §3202, Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–97; Pub. L. 99–640, §17, Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3554; Pub. L. 104–324, §1138(a)(5), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3989. |

Section

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2017—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 115–91 amended subsec. (b) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (b) read as follows:

"(b) Venue.—A person violating section 70503 or 70508 of this title shall be tried in the district court of the United States for—

"(1) the district at which the person enters the United States; or

"(2) the District of Columbia."

2008—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 110–407 inserted "or 70508" after "70503" in introductory provisions.
Media contact: Lyndi McMillan, lyndi.mcmillan@navistar.com, 331-332-3181


Investor contact: Marty Ketelaar, marty.ketelaar@navistar.com, 331-332-2706


Web site: www.Navistar.com





CHRISTIAN SCHULZ APPOINTED TO NAVISTAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS





LISLE, Ill. - August 14, 2018 - Navistar International Corporation (NYSE: NAV) today announced that Christian Schulz has been named to its board of directors, effective immediately. Schulz, 41, replaces Matthias Gründler, who previously resigned from the Navistar board after serving more than a year as a director. Schulz has been appointed to the board’s finance committee.


Schulz is currently the CFO of Volkswagen Truck & Bus, soon transforming into TRATON AG, and was previously in charge of Corporate Development, Strategy and M&A at the company since January 2017.


“We look forward to Christian’s contributions to the Navistar board of directors. His automotive and truck experience and knowledge will be of great value to our board and to Navistar management,” said Troy A. Clarke, Navistar chairman, president and chief executive officer. “I also want to personally thank Matthias Gründler for his distinguished service to our company. He played a key role in establishing Navistar’s global alliance with Volkswagen Truck & Bus and in overseeing the alliance’s strong progress. His knowledge, dedication and expertise have been invaluable to Navistar.”


Prior to joining the Volkswagen Truck & Bus team in January 2017, Schulz worked as Director of Controlling Operations worldwide at Mercedes-Benz Cars from 2011 through 2016. Between 2008 and 2011, Schulz worked as the Controlling Director for Purchasing, Production, and Development at Mitsubishi Fuso Truck & Bus in Tokyo. Schulz began his career at Daimler AG in 1999 and held various positions in the Finance, Controlling and Risk Management departments.





About Navistar


Navistar International Corporation (NYSE: NAV) is a holding company whose subsidiaries and affiliates produce International ® brand commercial and military trucks, proprietary diesel engines, and IC Bus TM brand school and commercial buses. An affiliate also provides truck and diesel engine service parts. Another affiliate offers financing services. Additional information is available at www.Navistar.com .





# # #
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of ZAGG Incorporated (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Robert G. Pedersen II, 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, to the best of my knowledge:




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




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




/s/ROBERT G. PEDERSEN IIRobert G. Pedersen II

Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer



March 24, 2011




This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
From:       Richard Krock <rkrock@vinylinfo.org>                                                                             
                                                                                                                               
  To:         Jodi Howard/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA                                                                                     
                                                                                                                               
  Date:       09/16/2010 05:29 PM                                                                                              
                                                                                                                               
  Subject:    Vinyl Institute Concentration Data Base for EPA PVC MACT Rule                                                    
                                                                                                                               





Dear Ms. Howard,

During our August 24, 2010 meeting at your office, the Vinyl Institute
displayed a data base that utilized concentrations from submitted data
per the Section 114 Request.   EPA expressed an interest in obtaining
our data base.  Please accept our apologies for the late submission of
this information, but our members wanted to be sure the information was
properly vetted before it was submitted for your consideration and use.
The attached letter provides additional support explanation about the
data base as well.  We trust that EPA finds this information of
interest.  Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions that
may arise.

Regards,



Richard Krock
Technical Director

The Vinyl Institute
1737 King Street Suite 390
Alexandria, VA 22314
Direct:  571.970.3392
Mobile:  571.216.4474
Fax:  571.970.3271
Email:  rkrock@vinylinfo.org
http://www.vinylinfo.org
http://www.vinylindesign.com(See attached file: VI Letter to EPA
Conveying PVC MACT Resin Test Concentrations 9 16 10.pdf)(See attached
file: Industry Wide Concentration Data Aggregation 09 16 10.xls)
#### SIMMONS v. POPE et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

November 18, 1903.)

1. Landlord and Tenant—Lease—Termination—Subtenancy—Notice to Quit.

Where, after the surrender of a lease, the landlord induced one of the tenants to continue to collect rent from defendant,' a sublessee, in order to conceal from the latter his purpose of tearing down the building, and to preserve the tenancy as long as possible, the landlord thereby accepted defendant as his tenant, which tenancy was only terminable on service of the statutory five days’ notice to quit.

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District

Action by Charles H. Simmons against Michael E. Pope and others. From a Municipal Court judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant Sbarrie appeals. Reversed.

Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and BISCHOFF and BLANCHARD, JJ.

Jacob S. Strahl, for appellant.

Stephen O’Brien, for respondent.

BISCHOFF, J.

The appellant was an undertenant of a portion of the premises; his tenancy being from month to month, according to the most favorable view of the landlord’s case. In March, 1903, the principal lease was surrendered, but one of the principal tenants continued to collect the rents from undertenants, at the landlord’s request, and as his agent. The landlord’s purpose, as expressed in his letter to the agent, was to conceal from the under-tenants the proposed tearing down of the building, and thus to preserve the tenancy as long as possible. Upon the evidence, there can *974be no room for dispute that the landlord, in legal effect, accepted the tenancy of this appellant, and that this tenancy was terminable only by service of the statutory five days’ notice. The acceptance of monthly rent from the tenant in occupation was prima facie proof of the relation of landlord and tenant (Morris v. Niles, 12 Abb. Prac. 103; 7 McAdam on L. & T. § 31) and for a monthly tenancy (Id. § 39)- There is nothing to rebut the inference of a tenancy as thus arising, and the landlord’s writings, following the surrender of the principal lease, confirm the existence of this tenancy.

A paper described as a notice to quit was offered in evidence for the landlord, after proof of service upon the tenant, but was for some reason excluded; and the record is destitute of proof that the notice essential to the termination of the monthly tenancy (Brien v. Romano, 27 Misc. Rep. 225, 57 N. Y. Supp. 750) was in fact given. The evidence submitted to the jury, therefore, could not justify the verdict, and the motion to dismiss upon this particular ground should have been granted.

Final order reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3519 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3519

 To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide a credit toward the 
non-Federal share of projects carried out under the airport improvement 
   program to an owner or operator of an airport that is utilized to 
                  respond to a disaster or emergency.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 28, 2005

 Mr. Andrews introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide a credit toward the 
non-Federal share of projects carried out under the airport improvement 
   program to an owner or operator of an airport that is utilized to 
                  respond to a disaster or emergency.

    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 ``Airport Emergency Reimbursement Act 
of 2005''.

SEC. 2. AIP CREDIT FOR UTILIZATION OF AIRPORTS IN RESPONSE TO DISASTERS 
              AND EMERGENCIES.

    Section 47109 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(e) Credit for Utilization of Airports in Response to Disasters 
and Emergencies.--
            ``(1) In general.--If an owner or operator of an airport 
        allows the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
        or the head of a State or local agency to utilize the airport 
        to respond to a disaster or emergency declared under the Robert 
        T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
        U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the owner or operator shall receive a 
        credit for such utilization that may applied toward the non-
        Federal share of allowable project costs for projects carried 
        out at the airport under this subchapter.
            ``(2) Amount of credit.--The amount of a credit provided 
        under this subsection for utilization of an airport shall be in 
        an amount that equals the revenues that the owner or operator 
        demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary of 
        Transportation were lost, and the costs of operating the 
        airport that the owner or operator demonstrates to the 
        satisfaction of the Secretary were incurred, by the owner or 
        operator during the period of such utilization.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 13.1




CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
 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 Annual Report of China Finance Online Co. Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Zhiwei Zhao, Chief Executive 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 to the best of my knowledge:
 
 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: April 29, 2013
 
 By:
/s/ Zhao ZhiweiName:  Zhao ZhiweiTitle: Chief Executive Officer
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### §334. Limitation on revision of equal employment opportunity regulations

#### (a) Limitation

Except as specifically provided in this section, the Commission shall not revise—

(1) the regulations concerning equal employment opportunity as in effect on September 1, 1992 (47 C.F.R. 73.2080) as such regulations apply to television broadcast station licensees and permittees; or

(2) the forms used by such licensees and permittees to report pertinent employment data to the Commission.

#### (b) Midterm review

The Commission shall revise the regulations described in subsection (a) to require a midterm review of television broadcast station licensees' employment practices and to require the Commission to inform such licensees of necessary improvements in recruitment practices identified as a consequence of such review.

#### (c) Authority to make technical revisions

The Commission may revise the regulations described in subsection (a) to make nonsubstantive technical or clerical revisions in such regulations as necessary to reflect changes in technology, terminology, or Commission organization.

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title III, §334, as added Pub. L. 102–385, §22(f), Oct. 5, 1992, 106 Stat. 1499.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective 60 days after Oct. 5, 1992, see section 28 of Pub. L. 102–385, set out as an Effective Date of 1992 Amendment note under section 325 of this title.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 5, 2018

No. 04-17-00685-CR

Robert Miles DUNCAN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR-14-0000076

Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserted there are no meritorious issues 

to raise on appeal. Counsel certified he served copies of the brief and motion on appellant,

informed appellant of his right to review the record and file his own brief, and provided appellant 

with a form motion for requesting the record and explained to appellant the procedure for 

obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Nichols v. 

State, 954 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 

177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Appointed counsel filed the Anders brief on 

April 3, 2018, and thereafter, his motion to withdraw on April 11, 2018. When appellant had not 

filed the record request form provided by appointed counsel by May 23, 2018, we ordered him to 

file his pro se brief, if any, on or before July 9, 2018. However, rather than filing his brief, on 

July 2, 2018, appellant filed the motion provided by counsel, requesting a copy of the appellate 

record. 

Accordingly, we ORDER the clerk of this court to send a copy of the appellate record —

the clerk’s and reporter’s records — to appellant. We further ORDER appellant to file his pro se 

brief in this court on or before August 20, 2018. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the 

State may file a responsive brief no later than thirty days after appellant’s pro se brief is filed in 

this court. The motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel will continue to be held in 

abeyance pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988) 

(holding that motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate court independently 

reviews record to determine whether counsel’s evaluation that appeal is frivolous is sound); 
Schulman v. State, 252 S.W.3d 403, 410-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (same).

We further order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on appellant, his 

counsel, and the attorney for the State. 

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 5th day of July, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court