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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1121 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1121

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
      To prohibit a moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracturing.

    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 ``Protecting American Energy 
Production Act''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTING AMERICAN ENERGY PRODUCTION.

    (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that States 
should maintain primacy for the regulation of hydraulic fracturing for 
oil and natural gas production on State and private lands.
    (b) Prohibition on Declaration of a Moratorium on Hydraulic 
Fracturing.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President 
may not declare a moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracturing unless 
such moratorium is authorized by an Act of Congress.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 20, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 1121

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

      To prohibit a moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracturing.
```
§ 1000.85 Assessment for order administration. On or before the payment receipt date specified under § ____.71 of each Federal milk order each handler shall pay to the market administrator its pro rata share of the expense of administration of the order at a rate specified by the market administrator that is no more than 5 cents per hundredweight with respect to: ( a ) Receipts of producer milk (including the handler's own production) other than such receipts by a handler described in § 1000.9(c) that were delivered to pool plants of other handlers;
( b ) Receipts from a handler described in § 1000.9(c);
( c ) Receipts of concentrated fluid milk products from unregulated supply plants and receipts of nonfluid milk products assigned to Class I use pursuant to § 1000.43(d) and other source milk allocated to Class I pursuant to § 1000.44(a) (3) and (8) and the corresponding steps of § 1000.44(b), except other source milk that is excluded from the computations pursuant to § ____.60 (d) and (e) of parts 1005, 1006, and 1007 of this chapter or § ____.60 (h) and (i) of parts 1001, 1030, 1032, 1033, 1124, 1126, 1131, and 1135 of this chapter; and
( d ) Route disposition in the marketing area from a partially regulated distributing plant that exceeds the skim milk and butterfat subtracted pursuant to § 1000.76(a)(1) (i) and (ii).
**Exhibit
      32**




**CERTIFICATION**




By
      signing below, each of the undersigned officers hereby certifies, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, that, to his knowledge, (i) this report fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      and (ii) the information contained in this report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of White
      River Capital, Inc.




Date:
      August 8, 2007






/s/
              John
              M. Eggemeyer, IIIJohn
                M. Eggemeyer, IIIChief
                Executive Officer/s/
              Martin
              J. SzumskiMartin
                J. SzumskiChief
                Financial Officer
#### Helen A. Russell, appellant, v. Bernard M. Snow, appellee.

Gen. No. 33,425.

Opinion filed November 6, 1929.

Charles J. Russell, for appellant. No appearance for appellee.

Mr. Justice Holdom

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### 852.228-71 Indemnification and Insurance.

As prescribed in 828.306, insert the following clause:

# Indemnification and Insurance (MAR 2018)

(a) *Indemnification.* The Contractor expressly agrees to indemnify and save the Government, its officers, agents, servants, and employees harmless from and against any and all claims, loss, damage, injury, and liability, however caused, resulting from, arising out of, or in any way connected with the performance of work under this contract. Further, it is agreed that any negligence or alleged negligence of the Government, its officers, agents, servants, and employees, shall not be a bar to a claim for indemnification unless the act or omission of the Government, its officers, agents, servants, and employees is the sole, competent, and producing cause of such claims, loss, damage, injury, and liability. At the option of the Contractor, and subject to the approval by the Contracting Officer, insurance coverage may be employed as guaranty of indemnification.

(b) *Insurance.* Satisfactory insurance coverage is a condition precedent to award of this contract. In general, a successful bidder must present satisfactory evidence of full compliance with State and local requirements, or those below stipulated, whichever are the greater. More specifically, workers' compensation and employer's liability coverage will conform to applicable State law requirements for the service defined, whereas general liability and automobile liability of comprehensive type shall, in the absence of higher statutory minimums, be required in the amounts per vehicle used of not less than $200,000 per person and $500,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and $20,000 per occurrence for property damage. State-approved sources of insurance coverage ordinarily will be deemed acceptable to the Department of Veterans Affairs, subject to timely certifications by such sources of the types and limits of the coverages afforded by the sources to the bidder. [Contracting Officer's Note: In those instances where airplane service is to be used, substitute the word “aircraft” for “automobile” and “vehicle” and modify coverage to require aircraft public and passenger liability insurance of at least $200,000 per passenger and $500,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, other than passenger liability, and $200,000 per occurrence for property damage. Coverage for passenger liability bodily injury shall be at least $200,000 multiplied by the number of seats or passengers, whichever is greater.]

(End of clause)

[83 FR 7409, Feb. 21, 2018, as amended at 84 FR 46455, Sept. 4, 2019]
EXHIBIT 15




August 13, 1998



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We are aware that Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation has included our report dated
August 13, 1998, (issued pursuant to the provisions of Statement on Auditing
Standards No. 71) in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-36189,
33-42771 and 333-13781) in the Prospectus constituting part of the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 33-50703, 33-51073, 33-54827, 33-55546, 333-49541
and 333-55923) and in the Prospectus/Proxy Statement constituting part of the
Registration Statement on Form S-4 (No. 333-49769).  We are also aware of our
responsibilities under the Securities Act of 1933.





Yours very truly,



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

    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 20-F of Marconi Corporation plc
(the "COMPANY") for the year ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "REPORT"), each of the
undersigned officers of the Company certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
the best of such officer's 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 the
          operations of the Company.


     /s/ MICHAEL PARTON
     ------------------------
     Name: Michael Parton
     Title: Chief Executive Officer
     Date: June 27, 2003


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 has been
provided to Marconi Corporation plc and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-4201

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BLANCA MIRRIAM SANCHEZ RIVERA, a/k/a La Cincuentona, a/k/a Blanca 

Miriam Sanchez Rivera,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:16-cr-00075-GJH-1)

Submitted: January 18, 2018 Decided: January 22, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Allen H. Orenberg, ORENBERG LAW FIRM, PC, North Bethesda, Maryland, for 

Appellant. Stephen M. Schenning, Acting United States Attorney, Elizabeth S. Boison, 

Special Assistant United States Attorney, Ray D. McKenzie, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Blanca Mirriam Sanchez Rivera seeks to appeal her conviction and sentence. On 

appeal, Rivera argues that her guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because she did 

not understand the consequences of her plea and lacked the mental competence to enter a 

valid plea. She also asserts that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence and 

that the appeal waiver contained in her plea agreement is invalid. The Government has 

sought to dismiss the appeal as barred by the waiver of the right to appeal included in the 

plea agreement.

“The validity of a waiver of appeal . . . is reviewed de novo, and we will enforce 

the waiver if it is valid and the issue appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” United 

States v. Adams, 814 F.3d 178, 182 (4th Cir. 2016). “In the absence of extraordinary 

circumstances, a properly conducted [Fed. R. Crim. P.] 11 colloquy establishes the 

validity of the waiver.” Id. The transcript of the Rule 11 hearing reveals no 

extraordinary circumstances, that the district court correctly found that Rivera was 

competent to enter a guilty plea, and that her plea was knowing and voluntary. Further, 

the district court specifically questioned Rivera about the appeal waiver, and she 

knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the waiver. Finally, the issues Rivera seeks to raise 

on appeal fall squarely within the compass of her waiver of appellate rights. We 

therefore dismiss the appeal.
3

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Resource: Self-Regulation and Toxic Stress Series      

# Resource: Self-Regulation and Toxic Stress Series

This webpage contains materials from OPRE’s “Self-Regulation and Toxic Stress” series. This series communicates the potential of a self-regulation framework for strengthening prevention programs and human services. The webpage features reports, briefs, infographics, tip sheets, and additional resources.**Learn more.**
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CertificationPursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of CDRV Investors, Inc. (the “Company”)for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jack L. Wyszomierski,Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to the § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Dated: May 11, 2006                                       |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ JACK L. WYSZOMIERSKI                                       |   |
| Name: Jack L. Wyszomierski                                     |
| Title: *Executive Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer* |

 

----
#### § 1001.51 Class I differential and price.

The Class I differential shall be the differential established for Suffolk County, Massachusetts, which is reported in § 1000.52. The Class I price shall be the price computed pursuant to § 1000.50(a) for Suffolk County, Massachusetts.
Lawrence Reid, Royce Reid,

Jennifer Heath and THL GP /s



# Four **th Court of Appeals**

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 30, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00550

- CV

Randy K. SMITH

, Appellant

v.

Lawrence REID , Royce Reid, Jennifer Heath and THL GP Inc.,

Appellees

From the 63rd Judicial District Court, Edwards County, Texas

Trial Court No. 3798

Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

The Appellant ’ s Motion for Extension of Time to file Motion for Rehearing is hereby

GRANTED. The Appellant ’ s Motion for Rehearing is due February 6, 2015.

It is so ORDER ED on December 30 th , 2 014. PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
9905.505-50 Techniques for application. ( a ) The detail and depth of records required as backup support for proposals, billings, or claims shall be that which is adequate to establish and maintain visibility of identified unallowable costs (including directly associated costs), their accounting status in terms of their allocability to contract cost objectives, and the cost accounting treatment which has been accorded such costs. Adherence to this cost accounting principle does not require that allocation of unallowable costs to final cost objectives be made in the detailed cost accounting records. It does require that unallowable costs be given appropriate consideration in any cost accounting determinations governing the content of allocation bases used for distributing indirect costs to cost objectives. Unallowable costs involved in the determination of rates used for standard costs, or for indirect-cost bidding or billing, need be identified only at the time rates are proposed, established, revised or adjusted.
( b ) ( 1 ) The visibility requirement of paragraph (a) of this subsection, may be satisfied by any form of cost identification which is adequate for purposes of contract cost determination and verification. The Standard does not require such cost identification for purposes which are not relevant to the determination of Government contract cost. Thus, to provide visibility for incurred costs, acceptable alternative practices would include: ( i ) The segregation of unallowable costs in separate accounts maintained for this purpose in the regular books of account,
( ii ) The development and maintenance of separate accounting records or workpapers, or
( iii ) The use of any less formal cost accounting techniques which establishes and maintains adequate cost identification to permit audit verification of the accounting recognition given unallowable costs.
( 2 ) Educational institutions may satisfy the visibility requirements for estimated costs either: ( i ) By designation and description (in backup data, workpapers, etc.) of the amounts and types of any unallowable costs which have specifically been identified and recognized in making the estimates, or
( ii ) By description of any other estimating technique employed to provide appropriate recognition of any unallowable costs pertinent to the estimates.
( c ) Specific identification of unallowable costs is not required in circumstances where, based upon considerations of materiality, the Government and the educational institution reach agreement on an alternate method that satisfies the purpose of the Standard.
AFS-14-334-E June 30, 2014

Exemption No. 11017 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0401

Ms. Ausra York

Parent of Rachele York 4560 North Hidden Oaks Way Crystal River, FL 34428

Dear Ms. York:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for an exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and lists the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated June 18, 2014, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Rachele York for an exemption from § 121.311(b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Rachele to exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA-approved child restraint system (CAReS, manufactured by AmSafe Corporation) during use of that child restraint system (CRS) aboard a United States (U.S.) aircraft.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Rachele.

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9834 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that numerous people with physical challenges had previously completed flights using restraint systems that addressed unique physical needs regarding safety, support, and security in the same manner of operations as described in this petition. The FAA further found that the petition would not set any new precedent regarding the use of restraint systems by persons

with disabilities.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—2

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9834;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9834 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Rachele York an exemption from § 121.311(b). In addition, any air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 while Rachele is aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b) to the extent necessary to allow her to use an FAA-approved CRS aboard a U.S. aircraft.

All operations under this exemption must be conducted with at least one of Rachele’s parents or a caregiver accompanying her. Rachele York may only occupy a passenger seat with no passenger seated behind her. In addition, Rachele’s parent or caregiver must carry a copy of this exemption and advise the air carrier about the contents of the exemption at least 48 hours before the date of each flight.

This exemption terminates on July 31, 2019, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/ John Barbagallo Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosure
----

| Sequiam                Software, Inc. | United                States |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------------|

| Sequiam                Sports, Inc. | United                States |
|-------------------------------------|------------------------------|

| Sequiam                Biometrics, Inc. | United                States |
|-----------------------------------------|------------------------------|

| Sequiam                Education, Inc. | United                States |
|----------------------------------------|------------------------------|

| Fingerprint                Detection Technologies, Inc. | United                States |
|---------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|

| Constellation                Biometrics Corporation | United                States |
|-----------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|

| Biometric                Security (PTY) LTD. (a/k/a Secure Biometrics.co.za) | South                Africa |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|

----
Exhibit 32.1**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Altra Industrial Motion, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended September 29, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael L. Hurt, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct 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 SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.       Date:November 13, 2006 By: /s/ Michael L. Hurt           Name: Michael L. Hurt    Title: Chief Executive Officer