alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 54 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), 

3 SECTION 1. POCKET VERSION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 

4 THE UNITED STATES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The 26th edition of the pocket 

6 version of the Constitution of the United States shall be 

7 printed as a Senate document under the direction of the 

8 Joint Committee on Printing. 

9 (b) ADDITIONAL COPIES.—In addition to the usual 

10 number, there shall be printed the lesser of— 

11 (1) 480,500 copies of the document, of which 

12 255,500 copies shall be for the use of the House of 

13 Representatives, 200,000 copies shall be for the use 

14 of the Senate, and 25,000 copies shall be for the use 

15 of the Joint Committee on Printing; or 

16 (2) such number of copies of the document as 

17 does not exceed a total production and printing cost 

18 of $226,250, with distribution to be allocated in the 

19 same proportion as described in paragraph (1), ex-
2 

†SCON 54 ES 

1 cept that in no case shall the number of copies be 

2 less than 1 per Member of Congress. 

3 (c) DISTRIBUTION.—The copies of the document 

4 printed for the use of the House of Representatives and 

5 the Senate under subsection (a) shall be distributed in ac6 cordance with— 

7 (1) a distribution plan approved by the chair 

8 and ranking minority member of the Committee on 

9 House Administration of the House of Representa10 tives, in the case of the copies printed for the use 

11 of the House of Representatives; and 

12 (2) a distribution plan approved by the chair 

13 and ranking minority member of the Committee on 

14 Rules and Administration of the Senate, in the case 

15 of the copies printed for the use of the Senate. 

Passed the Senate November 29, 2018. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 54 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the printing of the 26th edition of the 

States. pocket version of the Constitution of the United
IIA 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 33 

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to 

savings arrangements established by qualified State political subdivisions 

for non-governmental employees. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 6, 2017 

Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. MCCONNELL, Ms. 

MURKOWSKI, Mr. PERDUE, Mr. ROBERTS, and Mr. SCOTT) introduced 

the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor 

relating to savings arrangements established by qualified 

State political subdivisions for non-governmental employees. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the De4 partment of Labor relating to ‘‘Savings Arrangements Es5 tablished by Qualified State Political Subdivisions for 

6 Non-Governmental Employees’’ (published at 81 Fed. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 33 IS 

1 Reg. 92639 (December 20, 2016)), and such rule shall 

2 have no force or effect. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
215.404-74 Fee requirements for cost-plus-award-fee contracts. In developing a fee objective for cost-plus-award-fee contracts, the contracting officer shall— ( a ) Follow the guidance in FAR 16.405-2 and 216.405-2;
( b ) Not use the weighted guidelines method or alternate structured approach;
( c ) Apply the offset policy in 215.404-73(b)(2) for facilities capital cost of money, i.e., reduce the base fee by the amount of facilities capital cost of money; and
( d ) Not complete a DD Form 1547.
[63 FR 55040, Oct. 14, 1998, as amended at 67 FR 20692, Apr. 26, 2002]
(October 17, 1960)

#### Louis Blumenthal et al., Copartners Doing Business as Hudson Gold Company, Respondents, v. Alpine Syrup & Fountain Supply Co., Inc., Appellant.

Motion by appellant for a stay pending determination of appeal granted, on condition: (1) that, within five days after the entry of the order 0hereon, appellant file an undertaking for $1,000, with corporate surety, to pay the judgment and the costs on the appeal in- the event the judgment be affirmed or the appeal be dismissed; and (2) that appellant argue or submit the appeal at the November Term, beginning October 31, 1960. The appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. If the undertaking be filed, appellant is directed to serve a copy thereof, with notice of its filing, upon the respondent. The record and appellant’s brief must be served and filed on or before October 24, 1960. Beldoek, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
167

APPENDIX C

CASE NARRATIVES

FOR

HYLEBOS WATERWAY FISH INJURY STUDIES

Data submitted to the Damage Assessment Office

February, 1997
168
169

Hylebos Waterway Fish Injury Studies

Individual Data and Quality Assurance Results

CASE NARRATIVE

Juvenile Salmon Injury

Biliary FACs

Composites of bile samples from salmon species captured for the Hylebos Waterway Fish Injury

Studies were analyzed by HPLC with fluorescence detection in two separate sets. In addition to

benzo(a)pyrene- (BaP) and naphthalene- (NPH) like compounds, fluorescence responses were also

measured for phenanthrene- (PHN) like compounds. In accordance with the Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP), analytical quality control (identified by QCBatch) was assessed with each analysis

set. For the salmon studies, the QCBatch identification for the two analysis sets are “HylSal0l” and

“HylSa102”.

Method Blank

Results of HPLC analysis of the method blanks for both QCBatches showed fluorescence responses of BaP, NPH, and PHN met the following criteria: BaP, NPH, or PHN equivalents in the

method blanks were less than 10% of concentrations in any bile sample analyzed in the same set.

Initial Calibration Standards

An initial calibration standard consisting of known concentrations of BaP, NPH, and PHN was

analyzed in duplicate at the start of each sample set. The relative standard deviation (RSD) for

each individual PAH for the two analyses met the criteria (-<15%) set in the quality control

section (Table 4) of the SAP.

Continuing Calibration Standards

The calibration standard was analyzed periodically throughout the sample sets. The relative

standard deviation for the analyses was within the 25% RSD limit set for each individual PAH

(Table 4, SAP).

Bile Reference Material

A bile reference material was analyzed near the beginning and end of each sample set and compared to historical interlaboratory means of this reference material (see Quality Assurance section in SAP). The measured fluorescence responses of this bile sample were determined to be

within the upper and lower control limit of the interlaboratory mean value for this reference bile

(see Quality Assurance Results).

Replicates

Selected bile samples were analyzed in duplicate for every ten fish analyzed. The RSDs ranged

from 0 to 11.4%, which is within the 50% RSD limit set in the SAP.
170
171
172
173
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

Keonna M. Brown, 

Plaintiff(s), 

v. 

JTH Tax, Inc., 

Defendant(s). 

Case No. 12 cv 3241 

Judge Joan B. Gottschall 

ORDER

 The court previously entered judgment in In re: Liberty Refund Anticipation Loan Litigation, 

MDL No. 2334/N.D. Ill. No. 12 cv 2949. Accordingly, this member case is closed. 

 

Date: 1/27/2016 /s/ 

 Joan B. Gottschall 

 United States District Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 31 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 31

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF THE ROTUNDA OF THE CAPITOL FOR CEREMONY TO AWARD THE 
              CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL TO BOB DOLE.

    (a) Authorization.--The rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be 
used on January 17, 2018, for a ceremony to award the Congressional 
Gold Medal to Bob Dole.
    (b) Preparations.--Physical preparations for the conduct of the 
ceremony described in subsection (a) shall be carried out in accordance 
with such conditions as may be prescribed by the Architect of the 
Capitol.

            Passed the Senate December 20 (legislative day, December 
      19), 2017.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
115th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            S. CON. RES. 31

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

  Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony to 
            award the Congressional Gold Medal to Bob Dole.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT OCTOBER 31, 1999 AND THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                         113,190
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  217,521
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         394,278
<DEPRECIATION>                                 363,502
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              3,823,7000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      4,637,975
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,723,774
<OTHER-SE>                                 (4,395,647)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,823,700
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               171,655
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  367,525
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             120,666
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (195,870)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (195,870)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  38,297
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (157,573)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.15)


</TABLE>
SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT                                        
Exhibit 21

The subsidiaries of Mid-America Bancorp are listed below.  Each
of the companies with the exception of Mid-America Bank, F.S.B.,
which is a Federal Savings Bank organized under laws of the
United States, is incorporated in the state of Kentucky.

               Mid-America Bank of Louisville and Trust Co.

               Mid-America Money Order Company

               Eton Life Insurance Company

               Mid-America Data Processing Inc.

               Mid-America Property Management Company

               MABC Leasing Company

               Mid-America Bank, F.S.B.
<PAGE>
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Ivan Garay Lopez, * From the 35th District Court

 of Brown County

Trial Court No. CR21310.

Vs. No. 11-15-00313-CR * September 28, 2018

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Gray, C.J., sitting by assignment, 

and Wright, S.C.J., sitting by 

assignment)

 (Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AS OF OCTOBER 31, 1999 AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                             354
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,482
<ALLOWANCES>                                       424
<INVENTORY>                                      7,790
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,489
<PP&E>                                          22,300
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,838
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,849
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,391
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           239
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,263
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,849
<SALES>                                         65,220
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                65,220
<CGS>                                           47,955
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   47,955
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 924
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,154
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,154
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,154
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.58


</TABLE>
exv10w3



 






Exhibit 10.3




American IronHorse Motorcycle Company, Inc.

4600 Blue Mound Road

Fort Worth, Texas 76106

817-665-2000




April 3, 2006




Xponential, Inc.

6400 Atlantic Boulevard, Suite 190

Norcross, Georgia 30071




	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Re:
	 	Loan to American IronHorse Motorcycle
	 

	 	 	 	Company, Inc. (the “Company”)






Dwayne:




     Enclosed are the following documents:



     1. Promissory note in the original principal amount of $900,000 payable by the Company to
Xponential, Inc.;



     2. Subordination Agreement by and among Xponential, Inc., Curtiswood Capital, LLC, American
IronHorse Motorcycle Company, Inc., and Textron Financial Corporation; and



     3. Warrant issued to Xponential, Inc. for the purchase of 90,000 shares of common stock of the
Company.



     In addition, as partial consideration for the $900,000 loan to the Company, the Company will
pay to Xponential, Inc. an origination fee of two percent (2%) of the loan amount, or $18,000.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Yours very truly,	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	/s/ Robert A. Krause	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Robert A. Krause
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

** **

** **

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**

** **

I, John R. Howe, Executive Vice President, Chief FinancialOfficer of The Cato Corporation (the “Company”), certify, pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, that on the date of this Certification:

 

1.    theForm 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended April 28, 2012 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.  the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and      results of operations of the Company.

Dated:June 8, 2012

|   |                     |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | /s/ John R. Howe         |
|   | John R. Howe             |
|   | Executive Vice President |
|   | Chief Financial Officer  |

 

 

----
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 10-20653 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. JAIME ZAMORA, also k n o wn as Jimmy, also known as Primo, also known as Tio, Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:09-CR-476-1
Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jaime Zamora appeals his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine. Zamora argues that the district c o u rt p l a inly erred by failing to strictly comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 when admonishing him of his rights at the rearraignment proceeding. Specifically, Zamora contends that the court failed to advise him of the court’s authority t o o r d e r r estitution, as required by Rule U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D July 26, 2 011 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-20653 Document: 00511551506 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/26/2011No. 10-20653

11(b)(1)(K). He acknowledges that no restitution w a s o rdered and that the district court complied with every other aspect of Rule 11. Because Zamora failed to object in the district court, our review is limited t o p l ain error. See United States v. Vonn , 535 U.S. 55, 58-59 (2002). “ [A] defendant who seeks reversal of his conviction after a guilty plea, on the ground that the district court committed plain err o r under Rule 11, must show a reasonable pr ob ab i lity that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea.” United States v. Dominguez Benitez , 5 4 2 U .S. 74, 83 (2004). “[T]he burden of establishing entitlement to relief for plain error is on the d e f e n d a n t claiming it

. . . .” Id. at 82. Zamora has pointed to nothing in the record to show that but for the court’s omission, he would not have pleaded guilty. Therefore, Zamora has not met his burden to establish that he is entitled to relief for plain

error. See id. at 83. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 10-20653 Document: 00511551506 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/26/2011
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WAS HI NGTO N , D
. C
. 20460



## ' JUL 24 

## 2015

MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

SUBJECT: BEAD Chemical Profile for Registration Review : Strychnine Alkaloid (07690 1 ) 

### FROM: Colwell Cook,

# Entomologi**stlA ~**  Biological Analysis Branch Biolo gica l and Economic Analy s i s Di vis ion (7503P) THRU: Arnet Jones, Chief

### ~**~** 

# r**/:rrri.t.V~** Biolo gical Analysis Branch Biolo gica l and Economic Analy s is Divi s ion (7503P) 

### TO: Joel Wolf , C hemical Re view Manager Ri sk M anageme nt and Implementation Branch II Pesticide Re -evaluation Di vis ion (7508P) 

### Product Review Panel date: July 22, 2015 

## SUMMARY The Biologica l and Economic Analy s i s Di v is ion (BEAD) Chemical Profile (BCP) provide s an overview of the pest manage ment role for stryc hnin e. lnfonnation provided in thi s BCP may be used by s takehold ers (e.g. users and regi strants), OPP risk and benefit assesso rs, OPP risk managers, and the general public during the Reg is tration Review process of thi s pesticide. Strychnine is a rodenticide, first registered in the U
. S. in 1947
. It is currently registered only for underground use to control pocket gophers. It is available as a grain-based bait or a paste . Application method s may be by hand , or with the use of burrow-builder (which dig s artificial tunnel s), or an inj ector which pushes the bait into the animals' tunne l s. U s e s ites include orchards, pas ture s , ran ge l ands, agricultural crop s, non-agricultural un c ul tivated areas, irrigation syste ms , residenti a l outdoor premises.A terpene indole alkaloid, strychnine is a neurotoxin which acts as an antagonist of the glycine and acetylcholine receptors. This action results in muscles that continuously contract. BEAD has not conducted any benefits assessments nor Section 18 Emergency Exemption requests for strychnine in the last decade. While an emergency exemption request may yield some information about a chemical's importance, the lack of such requests do not indicate the relative importance of this chemical. BEAD has no available usage information for strychnine. Information on why strychnine is selected over other rodenticides would be helpful. 

### In addition, descriptions of where, when, and how strychnine is used would also be useful.

/

2
225.770-1 Definitions. As used in this section— *Component* means an item that is useful only when used in conjunction with an end item (15 CFR 772.1 and 22 CFR 120.45(b)).
*Item* means— ( 1 ) A USML defense article, as defined at 22 CFR 120.6;
( 2 ) A USML defense service, as defined at 22 CFR 120.9; or
( 3 ) A 600 series item, as defined at 15 CFR 772.1.
*Part* means any single unassembled element of a major or minor component, accessory, or attachment, that is not normally subject to disassembly without the destruction or impairment of designed use (15 CFR 772.1 and 22 CFR 120.45(d)).
[83 FR 66072, Dec. 21, 2018]