alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §1710. Index of documents: number and distribution

The Superintendent of Documents, at the close of each regular session of Congress, shall prepare and publish a comprehensive index of public documents, upon a plan approved by the Joint Committee on Printing. The Director of the Government Publishing Office shall, immediately upon its publication, deliver to him a copy of every document printed by the Government Publishing Office. The head of each executive department, independent agency and establishment of the Government shall deliver to him a copy of every document issued or published by the department, bureau, or office not confidential in character. He shall also prepare and print in one volume a consolidated index of Congressional documents, and shall index single volumes of documents as the Joint Committee on Printing directs. Two thousand copies each of the comprehensive index and of the consolidated index shall be printed and bound in addition to the usual number, two hundred for the Senate, eight hundred for the House of Representatives and one thousand for distribution by the Superintendent of Documents.

(Pub. L. 90–620, Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1280; Pub. L. 113–235, div. H, title I, §1301(b), (c)(1), Dec. 16, 2014, 128 Stat. 2537.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on 44 U.S. Code, 1964 ed., §76 (Jan. 12, 1895, ch. 23, §62, 28 Stat. 610).

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2014—Pub. L. 113–235, §1301(c)(1), substituted "Director of the Government Publishing Office" for "Public Printer".

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

#### Change of Name

"Government Publishing Office" substituted for "Government Printing Office" in text on authority of section 1301(b) of Pub. L. 113–235, set out as a note preceding section 301 of this title.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 13.2


                        CHINA FINANCE ONLINE CO. LIMITED

                                  Certification


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned, Sam Qian, Chief Financial
Officer of China Finance Online Co. Limited (the "Company"), hereby certifies,
to his knowledge, that the Company's annual report on Form 20-F for the year
ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


Date: April 28, 2005                            /s/ Sam Qian
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Name: Sam Qian
                                                Title: Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.
#### Alfonso Davalos, Also Known as Alfonso D. Romero, Respondent, v. Luis A. C. Cayzedo, Appellant.

Order, entered December 15, 1959, granting defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint conditionally, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, to the extent of granting the motion to dismiss unconditionally, with $10 costs, and, as so modified, the order is affirmed. There is insufficient excuse shown for the delay in prosecution. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Nassau Educational Chapter Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Respondent, v Board of Education of Farmingdale Union Free School District, Appellant.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Acting Superintendent of Schools of the Board of Education of the Farmingdale Union Free School District, wherein certain members of the petitioner association were found to have engaged in a strike and penalties were imposed by payroll deductions, the board appeals (by permission) from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated September 14, 1977, which denied its motion to dismiss the petition. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, motion granted and proceeding dismissed. This CPLR article 78 proceeding was commenced to review the imposition of penalties against approximately 125 employees who were found to have engaged in a strike on November 26, 1976, in violation of section 210 of the Civil Service Law. Insofar as it is applicable to this proceeding, subdivision 1 of that section prohibits strikes by public employees. Subdivision 2 generally provides for the imposition of penalties against individual employees who have been found to have violated the statutory prohibition. Section 210 (subd 2, par [h]) of the Civil Service Law outlines the procedures to be followed by an individual employee who seeks to challenge a determination that he had violated the statute. This paragraph concludes by providing that "The determinations provided in this paragraph shall be reviewable pursuant to article seventy-eight of the civil practice law and rules.” Subdivision 2 is limited by its terms to violations by individual employees and the review procedures provided by paragraph (h) are to guarantee the rights of the individual employee (cf. *Matter of Sanford v Rockefeller,*35 NY2d 547). The instant proceeding was not commenced by an individual employee, nor by the class of penalized employees. Rather, the proceeding was commenced by the organization which represents these employees. Throughout article 14 of the Civil Service Law (§ 200 *et seq.),*employees and employee organizations are accorded separate treatment. This is exemplified by section 210, which treats violations by employees in subdivision 2 and violations by employee *1050organizations in subdivision 3. A penalty imposed pursuant to subdivision 2 aggrieves only the employee and not the employee organization. Concomitantly, the right to review a determination made in accordance with subdivision 2 belongs to the individual employee and not to the employee organization. Therefore, the employee organization was not the proper party to have commenced this proceeding and the petition must be dismissed. To the extent that the employee organization is aggrieved because the appellant’s actions may have violated the collective bargaining agreement, it must pursue the grievance procedures afforded by that agreement. Latham, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The certification set forth
below is being submitted in connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a14(b) or Rule 15d14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange
Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.



Ray C. Dillon, the Chief Executive Officer, and Clefton D. Vaughan, the Chief Financial Officer, each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



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



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



/s/ Ray C. DillonRay C. DillonChief Executive OfficerJuly 28, 2004/s/ Clefton D. VaughanClefton D. VaughanChief Financial OfficerJuly 28, 2004
§ 47.87 Review of denial. ( a ) The health professional, miner, or designated representative may refer the written denial to MSHA for review. The request for review must include a copy of— ( 1 ) The request for disclosure of the identity of the trade secret chemical,
( 2 ) The confidentiality agreement, and
( 3 ) The operator's written denial.
( b ) If MSHA determines that the identity of the trade secret chemical should have been disclosed, the operator will be subject to citation by MSHA.
( c ) If MSHA determines that the confidentiality agreement would not sufficiently protect against unauthorized disclosure of the trade secret, MSHA may impose additional conditions to ensure that the occupational health services are provided without an undue risk of harm to the operator.
( d ) If the operator contests a citation for a failure to release the identity of a trade secret chemical, the matter will be adjudicated by the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. The Administrative Law Judge may review the citation and supporting documentation “in camera” or issue appropriate orders to protect the trade secret.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3477 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3477

  To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a plan for 
   establishing consolidated and co-located regional offices for the 
        Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 27, 2005

  Mr. Jindal introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Homeland Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a plan for 
   establishing consolidated and co-located regional offices for the 
        Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. PLAN FOR ESTABLISHING CONSOLIDATED AND CO-LOCATED DEPARTMENT 
              OF HOMELAND SECURITY REGIONAL OFFICES.

    Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Secretary of Homeland Security shall develop and submit to the 
Congress a plan for establishing consolidated and co-located regional 
offices for the Department of Homeland Security in accordance with 
section 706 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 346), that 
will--
            (1) enable a rapid, robust, and coordinated Federal 
        response to threats and incidents;
            (2) enhance all-hazards preparedness across the United 
        States with respect to terrorism, natural disasters, other 
        emergencies;
            (3) provide integrated capabilities among the Department of 
        Homeland Security, other Federal agencies, and State and local 
        governments; and
            (4) maximize cost savings and efficiencies through 
        establishment of regional offices at current Department of 
        Homeland Security agency regional structures with contiguous 
        multi-State operations.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> Simon Property Group, L.P.
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Form 10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         94,120
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 262,026<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0<F2>
<PP&E>                                     12,452,567
<DEPRECIATION>                                992,936
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             13,708,678
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0<F2>
<BONDS>                                     8,541,538
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                   944,280
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                  3,564,860
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               13,708,678
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            1,361,526
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 738,758
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                6,693
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            428,149
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               206,537
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           206,537
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (2,227)
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  204,310
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.67

<FN>
<F1> Receivables are stated net of allowances.

<F2> The Registrant does not report using a classified balance sheet.
</FN>

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 13, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 13, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18D0146. IN THE INTEREST OF A. C., A CHILD (MOTHER) .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2017JR001
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsPractical Techniques for Modeling Gas Turbine Engine PerformanceThe cost and risk associated with the design and operation of gas turbine engine systems has led to an increasing dependence on mathematical models. In this paper, the fundamentals of engine simulation will be reviewed, an example performance analysis will be performed, and relationships useful for engine control system development will be highlighted. The focus will be on thermodynamic modeling utilizing techniques common in industry, such as: the Brayton cycle, component performance maps, map scaling, and design point criteria generation. In general, these topics will be viewed from the standpoint of an example turbojet engine model; however, demonstrated concepts may be adapted to other gas turbine systems, such as gas generators, marine engines, or high bypass aircraft engines. The purpose of this paper is to provide an example of gas turbine model generation and system performance analysis for educational uses, such as curriculum creation or student reference.Document ID20160012485Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsChapman, Jeffryes W.*(Vantage Partners, LLC Brook Park, OH, United States)*Lavelle, Thomas M.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Litt, Jonathan S.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredOctober 21, 2016Publication DateOctober 1, 2016Subject CategoryAircraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberGRC-E-DAA-TN34474NASA/TM-2016-219147E-19270Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NNC12BA01BWBS: WBS 109492.02.03.02.11.01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Keywordsaerothermodynamicssystem modelinggas path dynamicsAvailable DownloadsNameType20160012485.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsIDRelationTitle20170000884See AlsoPractical Techniques for Modeling Gas Turbine Engine Performancevisibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
§ 1228.10 Information collection. ( a ) The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the information collection requirements contained in this part under 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* The approved OMB control number is identified in 30 CFR 1210.10. The information collected will be used to prepare a cooperative agreement with a State or Indian tribe wishing to perform royalty audits. The information should be submitted voluntarily in order to enter into a cooperative agreement authorized by 30 U.S.C. 1732.
( b ) Send comments regarding the burden estimates or any other aspect of this information collection, including suggestions for reducing burden, to the Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Attention: Rules & Regs Team, OMB Control Number 1012-0003, P.O. Box 25165, Denver, CO 80225-0165.
[57 FR 41868, Sept. 14, 1992, as amended at 58 FR 64903, Dec. 10, 1993; 76 FR 76617, Dec. 8, 2011]
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Olga Genza, Appellant. Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. Claimant was employed as a cleaner in the United Nations Building. In early Spring her employer fixed the dates of the annual vacation periods of its employees upon the basis of their seniority and notified them accordingly. Claimant’s vacation period was scheduled to begin on August 18, 1960. About the middle of the preceding week she sought to advance its commencement date to August 15-, The employer denied her request. After work on Friday, August 12 she left New York City for a vacation in an upstate area and returned to her place of employment at the end of August. On August 16 the employer discharged her because she had taken the unauthorized leave. The board adopted the finding of the Referee that claimant by reflective choice had provoked her dismissal and that this constituted a voluntary leaving of the employment without good cause. There is substantial evidence to support its determination. *(Matter of Salit*[Catherwood], 15 A D 2d 852.) The board was not bound to accept claimant’s excuse that illnesses of her grandchildren prevented her return to work on Monday, August 15. Decision unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ.
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.

§ 982.453 Owner breach of contract. ( a ) Any of the following actions by the owner (including a principal or other interested party) is a breach of the HAP contract by the owner: ( 1 ) If the owner has violated any obligation under the HAP contract for the dwelling unit, including the owner's obligation to maintain the unit in accordance with the HQS.
( 2 ) If the owner has violated any obligation under any other HAP contract under Section 8 of the 1937 Act (42 U.S.C. 1437f).
( 3 ) If the owner has committed fraud, bribery or any other corrupt or criminal act in connection with any federal housing program.
( 4 ) For projects with mortgages insured by HUD or loans made by HUD, if the owner has failed to comply with the regulations for the applicable mortgage insurance or loan program, with the mortgage or mortgage note, or with the regulatory agreement; or if the owner has committed fraud, bribery or any other corrupt or criminal act in connection with the mortgage or loan.
( 5 ) If the owner has engaged in drug-related criminal activity.
( 6 ) If the owner has committed any violent criminal activity.
( b ) The PHA rights and remedies against the owner under the HAP contract include recovery of overpayments, abatement or other reduction of housing assistance payments, termination of housing assistance payments, and termination of the HAP contract.
[60 FR 34695, July 3, 1995, as amended at 64 FR 26647, May 14, 1999; 64 FR 56914, Oct. 21, 1999; 65 FR 16821, Mar. 30, 2000]
#### §§ 282.29-282.30 [Reserved]
§ 28.4 Definitions. As used in this part— ( a ) *Applicant* means an individual, partnership, company, corporation, association, or other organization that designs, manufactures, assembles, or fabricates, or controls the design, manufacture, assembly, or fabrication of a fuse, and who seeks to obtain a certificate of approval for such fuse.
( b ) *Approval* means a certificate or formal document issued by MSHA stating that an individual fuse or combination of fuses has met the minimum requirements of this Part 28, and that the applicant is authorized to use and attach an approval label or other equivalent marking to any fuse manufactured, assembled, or fabricated in conformance with the plans and specifications upon which the approval was based, as evidence of such approval.
( c ) *Approved* means conforming to the minimum requirements of this Part 28.
( d ) *MESA* means the United States Department of the Interior, Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration. Predecessor organization to MSHA, prior to March 9, 1978.
( e ) *MSHA* means the United States Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration.
( f ) *Fuse* means a device, no less effective than an automatic circuit breaker, for use with direct current which provides short-circuit protection for trailing cables in coal mines by interrupting an excessive current in the circuit.
[37 FR 7562, Apr. 15, 1972, as amended at 39 FR 24003, June 28, 1974; 43 FR 12316, Mar. 24, 1978]
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3548 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3548

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 2, 2005

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 on Franklin Avenue in Pearl River, New York, as the ``Heinz Ahlmeyer, 
                      Jr. Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The facility of the United States Postal Service located on 
Franklin Avenue in Pearl River, New York, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Heinz Ahlmeyer, Jr. Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Heinz Ahlmeyer, Jr. Post 
Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 1, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```