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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2049 

To ensure that all of Brevard County, Florida, is treated as a HUBZone, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 17, 2013 

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

on Small Business 

A BILL 

To ensure that all of Brevard County, Florida, is treated 

as a HUBZone, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Shuttle Workforce Re5 vitalization Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—During the covered period, any 

8 portion of Brevard County, Florida, that is not otherwise 

9 a HUBZone, as such term is defined under section 3(p) 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2049 IH

1 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(p)), shall be 

2 treated as a HUBZone for purposes of that Act. 

3 (b) COVERED PERIOD DEFINED.—In this section, the 

4 term ‘‘covered period’’ means the period beginning on the 

5 date of enactment of this Act and ending on January 1, 

6 2020. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Editorial Note on Subchapter C of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter C appear by Amdt. 381, 65 FR 64586, Oct. 30, 2000.

Editorial Note on Part 272
Editorial Note: OMB control numbers relating to this part 272 are contained in § 271.8.

§ 272.16 National Directory of New Hires. ( a ) *General.* Each State agency shall establish a system to verify applicant employment data for the determination of SNAP eligibility and correct benefit amount.
( b ) *Data source.* States shall use the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service (HHS) National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) and enter into a computer matching agreement with HHS pursuant to the authority in 42 U.S.C. 653(j)(10).
( c ) *Use of match data.* In accordance with the procedural requirements and privacy protections required for computer data matching at 5 U.S.C. 552a(p), States shall provide a system for: ( 1 ) Comparing identifiable information about each adult household member against data from the NDNH. States must, at minimum, match household members against new hire data available in the database. States shall make the comparison of matched data at the time of application and recertification.
( 2 ) The reporting of instances where there is a match;
( 3 ) The independent verification of match hits to determine their accuracy;
( 4 ) Notice to the household of match results;
( 5 ) An opportunity for the household to respond to the match prior to an adverse action to deny, reduce, or terminate benefits; and
( 6 ) The establishment and collection of claims as appropriate.
[81 FR 4163, Jan. 26, 2016]
#### In the Matter of Louis M. Waller for Admission to the Bar.

Fourth Department,

April 6, 1967.

*291
      *Per Curiam.*

Applicant was admitted to the Bar of the Commonwealth of Kentucky on April 15, 1957. He seeks admission to the Bar of this State pursuant to rule VII of the Rules of the Court of Appeals for the admission of attorneys. The rule, so far as pertinent, provides that '1 In its discretion the Appellate Division may admit to the Bar and license to practice without examination a person who, (a) has been admitted to practice in the highest law court in any other state * * * and (b) while residing in such other state * * * has actually practiced for a period of at least five years in its highest law court or highest court of original jurisdiction ’ ’.

It appears that applicant resided in the State of Ohio from April, 1957 to November, 1961 where he was employed as an attorney by a Federal agency. From November 20,1961 to May 20, 1965 he resided in Kentucky and since the latter date in this State. Since 1961 he has been employed by General Electric Company. It thus appears that his total period of residence in Kentucky after his admission to the Bar thereof has been three years and five months. It follows that he fails to meet the minimum requirements of the quoted rule.

Applicant contends, however, that he may ££ tack on ” to this three years’ plus period certain additional time, when he resided in Ohio, but was present in Kentucky £ 1 working on Kentucky cases for the government”. To sustain this contention applicant directs attention to a statement by way of dictum in *Matter of Lerch*(280 N. Y.*74, 76).*His reliance thereon is misplaced as shown by the decision of the same court in *Matter of Harvey*(309 N. Y. 46, 48) whore it was said; ££ At the time *Matter of Lerch (supra)*was decided (and until June 15,1955) our rule II contained no requirement of *residence*in the foreign State in which a petitioner claimed five years of practice. But the *Lerch*decision wrote that condition into the rule, and our new rule VII-1 includes it in terms.”

*292Applicant has failed to establish that while residing in Kentucky he has actually practiced law therein for at least five years. The application should be denied.

Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Marsh, JJ., concur.

Application unanimously denied.
Exhibit 7



Computation of Ratios for Fiscal Year ended December 31, 2013, 2014 and 2015



|                                |  |  |  |           |  |  |         |  |  |          |  | 
|------------------------------- |  |  |  | --------- |  |  | ------- |  |  | -------- |  | 
|                                |  |  |  | 2013      |  |  | 2014    |  |  | 2015     |  | 
|                                |  |  |  | CNY000   |  |  | CNY000 |  |  | CNY000  |  | 
|Current assets (a)              |  |  |  | 2,997,211 |  |  | 62,524  |  |  | 37,387   |  | 
|Current liabilities (b)         |  |  |  | 2,568,144 |  |  | 37,827  |  |  | 59,277   |  | 
|Current ratio (c=a/b)           |  |  |  | 1.17      |  |  | 1.65    |  |  | 0.63     |  | 
|Working capital (d=a-b)         |  |  |  | 429,067   |  |  | 24,697  |  |  | (21,890) |  | 
|Total interest-bearing debt (i) |  |  |  |          |  |  |        |  |  |         |  | 
|Total shareholders equity (j)  |  |  |  | 255,518   |  |  | 22,614  |  |  | (12,276) |  | 
|Total capital (k=i+j)           |  |  |  | 255,518   |  |  | 22,614  |  |  | (12,276) |  |
EXHIBIT 99.906 CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002

Registrant: Nicholas Fund, Inc.

Form: N-CSR Semiannual Reportdated September 30, 2009

I, Albert O. Nicholas, hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge: 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); 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: | 11/30/2009                                              |  |
|-------|---------------------------------------------------------|--|
|       | /s/    Albert O. Nicholas                               |  |
|       | Albert O. Nicholas, President (Chief Executive Officer) |  |

I, Jeffrey T. May, hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge: 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); 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: | 11/30/2009                                          |  |
|-------|-----------------------------------------------------|--|
|       | /s/    Jeffrey T. May                               |  |
|       | Jeffrey T. May, Treasurer (Chief Financial Officer) |  |
#### § 201.12 Name of kind and variety.

The representation of kind or kind and variety shall be confined to the name of the kind or kind and variety determined in accordance with § 201.34. The name shall not have affixed thereto words or terms that create a misleading impression as to the history or characteristics of the kind or variety.

[20 FR 7929, Oct. 21, 1955]
TS- AMID30

Attachment #4

Pt. 2, Sec. A, 1d

Manufacturing and Processing Information on the New Chemical Substance s at Industrial Sites Controlled by the SubmitterAttachment #4

**Manufacturing and Processing Information on the New Chemical**

**Substances at Industrial Sites Controlled by the Submitter**

**– Manufacture** 

**And Processing** TS

- AMID30
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS5630 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
#### SPRING GARDEN INS. CO., Appellant, v. MILLER, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

July 12, 1906.)

Action by the Spring Garden Insurance Company against Remi Miller.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with costs.
#### Cavenaugh *vs.*Davis.

Ghakobbv.. Cass 124

-Error to the Christian Circuit; Shackleford, Judge.

*Injunction. Dismissal of. bill. Jlction at law.. Bar.*

*May 12.*

Chief Justice Robertson

delivered the opinion of the Court,

Kavenaugh filed a bill in chancery against Davis, enjoining some small judgments, and praying a set oli for the use of two slaves, (Violet and *Joe)*which, as the bill averred, he (Davis) had enjoyed in consequence of the loan of about $100. The injunction having been dissolved by the order of the circuit court, Kavenaugh voluntarily dismissed his bill before an answer nad been filed. After-wards, he brought this action of assumpsit for the use of the slaves. On tne trial, upon the general issue, Davis relied ou the suit, in chancery as a bar to-any recovery, and the circuit court having instructed the jury to tha. etteot, in substance, verdict and judgment were een>eq.uently rendered against the plaintiff.

*372Dismissing a bill, after dissolution of injunction, does not preclude complainant from maintaining his aotion at law, for the demand, set up in the bill ; it is no lifignti >n or determination of the rights of the parties.

*Crittenden,*for plaintiff; *Mordicad,*for defendant.

There, is no reason whatever for presuming that the subject matter of this suit had ever been litigated or involved in any other suit, except so far as it had been presented in the bill which we have mentioned; the dismission of that bill furnished (according to the only rational interpretation of this record,) the only ground for the instruction given by the circuit court, and the consequent verdict of the -

The bare statement of the object of the bill, and of the manner in which it was abandoned, is sufficient to shew indisputably that the right to compensation for the use of the slaves had not been concluded or litigated.

After the dissolution of the injunction, the bill was *functus officii,*and the court had no jurisdiction to decree a payment of the sum claimed by the bill.

Wherefore, the instruction was erroneous, and, of course, the judgment must be reversed, the verdict set aside, and the cause remanded for a new frial.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 220 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 220

  To amend section 5112 of title 31, United States Code, to limit the 
 face value of coins that the Secretary of the Treasury may issue, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 14, 2013

   Mr. Walden (for himself, Mr. Lance, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Hudson, Mr. 
 Westmoreland, Mr. Holding, Mr. Chaffetz, Mrs. Noem, Mr. Fincher, Mr. 
  Campbell, Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mr. Jones, Mr. Nugent, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. 
  Nunnelee, Mr. Yoder, Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Kinzinger of Illinois, Mr. 
Latta, and Mr. Miller of Florida) introduced the following bill; which 
          was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend section 5112 of title 31, United States Code, to limit the 
 face value of coins that the Secretary of the Treasury may issue, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Stop the Coin Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON FACE VALUE OF COINS.

    Section 5112 of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (k)--
                    (A) by inserting ``having such nominal, or face, 
                values as the Secretary may determine but not in any 
                case exceeding $200'' after ``platinum coins''; and
                    (B) by striking ``denominations,''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(w) Limitation on Face Value.--The Secretary may not mint or 
issue any coin having a nominal, or face, value exceeding $200.''.
                                 <all>
```
From: "Joseph Rykowski" <Joseph.Rykowski@ormet.com>

To: Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 01/14/2011 02:33 PM

Subject: Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation Air Emission Modeling Spreadsheets

Ms. Boyd,

Attached are the 2 spreadsheets that you asked to be completed by today, and also the Google Earth 

(.kmz) file that you asked be submitted. If you have any further questions about these sheets, please email me.

Joe Rykowski

Environmental Technician

Ormet Primary Aluminum Corp.
#### § 28.30 Samples not returned are property of Department.

Samples not returned in accordance with this subpart, and loose cotton separated from samples in the handling and classification thereof, shall become the property of the Department.

[28 FR 10633, Oct. 3, 1963]
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: In the Interest of A.M.E.

Appellate case number: 01

- 21

- 00214

- CV

Trial court case number: 2017

- 01322J

Trial court: 315th District Court of Harris County

This is an appeal from a final decree terminating parental rights. Appeals from orders terminating the parent

- child relationship are to be brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. See T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN . 6.2( a), reprinted in T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE , tit. 2, subtit. F app. The notice of appeal in this case was filed on April 30, 2021, and thus, the date of final disposition should be no later than October 27, 2021. Appellant’s brief was due on June 28, 20 21 . On June 28, 2021, appellant filed an unopposed motion for extension requesting a 20

- day extension until July 19, 2021. We grant the motion and extend the deadline for appellant’s brief to July 15, 2021. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(d) (in the interest of justice th e court may shorten the time for filing briefs and for submission of the case). No further extensions will be granted absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances. Appellee’s brief will be due 20 days from the date appellant’s brief is filed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(a)

- (c) (20

- day deadline for filing all briefs in accelerated appeals)

. It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

____

/s/ Richard Hightower

______  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date:

___ June 29, 2021

____
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-1672

GHOLAMREZA ASLIYALFANI,

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION;

NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE NATIONAL

LAWYERS GUILD; LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL

RIGHTS UNDER LAW OF TEXAS, Immigrant and

Refugee Rights Project,

Amici Curiae.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A28-290-015)

Submitted: January 31, 2000 Decided: March 7, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Roberta Freedman, PEDERSON & FREEDMAN, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil

Division, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, M. Jocelyn Lopez

Wright, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Mary Kenney, Barbara

Hines, LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW OF TEXAS,

San Antonio, Texas; Claudia Slovinsky, LAW OFFICE OF CLAUDIA

SLOVINSKY, New York, New York, for Amici Curiae.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Gholamreza Asliyalfani, a native and citizen of Iran, seeks

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (Board) decision to

deny his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. Asliyalfani

sought to reopen the proceedings for the purpose of applying for

suspension of deportation. However, Asliyalfani did not meet the

continuous presence requirement for suspension of deportation

because he failed to accrue seven years of continuous physical

presence prior to the initiation of deportation proceedings against

him. See Appiah v. INS, No. 97-1705, 2000 WL 43717 (4th Cir. Jan.

20, 2000). Therefore, we deny Asliyalfani’s petition for review

and affirm the decision of the Board. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
State of Utah 

GARY R. HERBERT 

Governor 

GREG BELL 

Lieutenant Governor 

February 24, 2012 

Department of 


Environmental Quality 


Amanda Smith 

Executive Director 

DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY 


Bryce C. Bird 


Director 

DAQP-O I 0-12 


Carl Oa\y, Air Program Director 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII 

1595 Wyncoop Street 

Denver, Colorado 80202-1129 

Dear Mr. Daly, 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified a deficiency in R307-401-15. Air Strippers and 

Soil Venting Projects that must be addressed prior to approval of the changes to this rule that were 

submitted on January 8, 1999. The rule contains pre-existing language that allows the executive secretary 

to approve alternate test or monitoring methods. The Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ) is currently 

lIsing this discretion to require sources to use updated EPA test methods instead of the outdated methods 

specified in the rule. 

UDAQ commits to revise R307-401-15 to remove the executive secretary's discretion to approve alternate 

test or monitoring methods. 

Sincerely, 

Bryce C. Bird, Executive Secretary 

Utah Air Quality Board 

195 Nonh 1950 West· Salt Lake City, Utah 


Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144820· Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4820 


Telephone (801 ) 536·4000· Fax (801)536·4099· T.DD. (801 ) 536-4414 


www.deq.lI/ohgov 

Printed on 100% recycled paper
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 Quarterly Report of Ottawa Savings Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/ Gary L. OcepekGary L. OcepekPresident and Chief Executive OfficerMay 11, 2007/s/ Jon L. KranovJon L. KranovSenior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerMay 11, 2007
**EXHIBIT 31.1****Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**I, David Shaw, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Standard Aero Holdings, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present inall material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by the reportbased on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.Dated:August 14, 2006   /s/ David Shaw     David Shaw  Chief Executive Officer