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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2160 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2160

To support and encourage the health and well-being of elementary school 
 and secondary school students by enhancing school physical education 
                         and health education.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 23, 2013

   Ms. Fudge (for herself, Mr. Polis, and Mr. Lewis) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and 
                             the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To support and encourage the health and well-being of elementary school 
 and secondary school students by enhancing school physical education 
                         and health education.

    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 ``Promoting Health as Youth Skills In 
Classrooms And Life Act''.

SEC. 2. HEALTH EDUCATION AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION AS CORE ACADEMIC 
              SUBJECTS.

    Section 9101(11) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801(11)) is amended by striking ``and geography'' and 
inserting ``geography, physical education, and health education''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2313 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2313

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to issue regulations 
 covering the practice of enrolled agents before the Internal Revenue 
                                Service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 11, 2013

 Mr. Boustany (for himself, Mr. Becerra, Ms. Norton, and Mr. Bishop of 
  New York) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to issue regulations 
 covering the practice of enrolled agents before the Internal Revenue 
                                Service.

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

SECTION 1. ENROLLED AGENTS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 77 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 7529. ENROLLED AGENTS.

    ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may prescribe such regulations as 
may be necessary to regulate the conduct of enrolled agents in regards 
to their practice before the Internal Revenue Service.
    ``(b) Use of Credentials.--Any enrolled agents properly licensed to 
practice as required under rules promulgated under subsection (a) shall 
be allowed to use the credentials or designation as `enrolled agent', 
`EA', or `E.A.'.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 77 of 
such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 7529. Enrolled agents.''.
    (c) Prior Regulations.--Nothing in the amendments made by this 
section shall be construed to have any effect on part 10 of title 31, 
Code of Federal Regulations, or any other related Federal rule or 
regulation issued before the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Frank Eason, Appellant, v Harold J. Smith, as Superintendent of the Attica Correctional Facility, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously affirmed (see *People v Parker, 41*NY2d 21). (Appeal from judgment of Wyoming Supreme Court— habeas corpus.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Cardamone, Hancock, Jr., Callahan and Witmer, JJ.
ATTACHMENT A2 Amendment to EPA ICR #2249.01

Chemicals on Current List for Tier 1 Screening Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11-20 21-45 46+

2,4-D 10 1 4,7–Methano–1H–isoindole–1,3(2H)–dione, 2–(2–ethylhexyl) –3a,4,7,7a–tetrah y dro– ( MGK-264 ) 6 1

Abamectin 8 1 Acephate 6 1 Atrazine 4 1 Benfluralin 2 1 Bifenthrin 6 1 Captan 4 1 Carbamothioic acid, dipropyl-, S-ethyl ester 3 1 Carbaryl 3 1 Carbofuran 1 1 Chlorothalonil 6 1 Chlorpyrifos 5 1 Cyfluthrin 1 1 Cypermethrin 5 1 DCPA (chlorthal-dimethyl) 1 1 Diazinon 2 1 Dichlobenil 2 1 Dicofol 1 1 Dimethoate 4 1 Disulfoton 1 1 Endosulfan 3 1 Esfenvalerate 3 1 Ethoprop 1 1 Fenbutatin oxide 1 1 Flutolanil 2 1 Folpet 2 1 Gardona (cis isomer) 2 1 Glyphosate 15 1 Imidacloprid 12 1 I p rodione 4 1 Linuron 2 1 Malathion 7 1 Metalaxyl 3 1 Methamidophos 1 1 Methidathion 2 1 Methomyl 1 1 Methyl Parathion 1 1 Metolachlor 4 1 Metribuzin 3 1 Myclobutanil 2 1 Norflurazon 1 1 O-phenylphenol 3 1 Oxamyl 1 1 Permethrin 10 1 Phosmet 1 1 Piperonyl Butoxide 7 1 # Identified Potential Order Recipients per Chemical 

### Updated Estimate for Number of Potential Recipients of EDSP Tier 1 Orders/DCIs As of September 3, 2009



### Pesticide Actives

2249.01_Amendment-A2_Order Recipients_2009-09-09.xls Page 1 of 2ATTACHMENT A2 Amendment to EPA ICR #2249.01

Chemicals on Current List for Tier 1 Screening Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11-20 21-45 46+ # Identified Potential Order Recipients per Chemical

Propachlor 2 1 Propargite 1 1 Propiconazole 10 1 Propyzamide (pronamide) 2 1 Pyridine, 2-(1- methyl-2-(4-phenoxyphenoxy)ethoxy) 2 1 Quintozene 3 1 Resmethrin 1 1 Simazine 3 1 Tebuconazole 12 1 Triadimefon 2 1 Trifluralin 6 1 Sub-total for Pesticide Actives 219

Acetone 60 1 Butyl benzyl phthalate 14 1 Dibutyl phthalate 30 1 Diethyl phthalate 13 1 Dimethyl phthalate 19 1 Di-sec-octyl phthalate 38 1 Isophorone 4 1 Methyl ethyl ketone 42 1 Toluene 310 1 Sub-total for Pesticidal Inert Chemicals 530 

### Total Potential Order Recipients 749

15 13 9 6 2 5 2 1 0 3 6 3 2 Pesticidal Inert Chemicals

Distibution of # Recipients per Chemical

1-5 = 45 6-10 = 11

2249.01_Amendment-A2_Order Recipients_2009-09-09.xls Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-30925

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROBBIE RAY, also known as Pookie Ray,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:11-CR-19-4

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robbie Ray pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and to

possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine hydrochloride and

280 grams or more of cocaine base, one count of distribution of 28 grams or more

of cocaine base, two counts of use of a communication facility in the commission

of the drug conspiracy, and one count of distribution of 280 grams or more of

cocaine base. In his written plea agreement, Ray waived, inter alia, his right to

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 29, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-30925 Document: 00512423091 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/29/2013
No. 12-30925

appeal his conviction and sentence. The district court imposed an aggregate

sentence of 216 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release.

On appeal, Ray argues that the district court abused its discretion by

denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and by failing to hold an

evidentiary hearing on that motion. In support, Ray contends that his plea was

the product of duress concerning his brother and co-defendant, Courtney Ray,

and therefore was not knowing and voluntary. He further contends that he

asserted his innocence; that he did not delay in filing the motion; and that

withdrawal would not prejudice the Government, substantially inconvenience

the district court, or waste judicial resources. Ray may raise his argument

regarding the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea because a waiverof-appeal provision is not valid unless both the plea and the waiver were

knowingly and voluntarily entered. See United States v. Robinson, 187 F.3d 516,

517 (5th Cir. 1999).

We review the district court’s decision to deny a motion to withdraw for

abuse of discretion. United States v. McKnight, 570 F.3d 641, 645 (5th Cir.

2009). A review of the record, Ray’s arguments, and the factors listed in United

States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1984), shows that the district court

did not abuse its discretion in denying Ray’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. 

See id. As Ray did not allege sufficient facts to justify relief on his claim, the

district court did not abuse its discretion by not holding an evidentiary hearing

before denying the motion to withdraw the plea. See United States v. Powell, 354

F.3d 362, 370 (5th Cir. 2003).

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-30925 Document: 00512423091 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/29/2013
Exhibit 31.1**Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302**I, Michael P. Sage, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Orchids Paper Products Company (the“Registrant”);2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (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 such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) [reserved](c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The Registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: November 3, 2006 /s/ Michael P. Sage Michael P. Sage    Chief Executive Officer and President  
27
```

[109th Congress Public Law 194]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ194.109]

[[Page 120 STAT. 302]]

Public Law 109-194
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 8501 Philatelic Drive in Spring Hill, Florida, as the ``Staff Sergeant 
 Michael Schafer Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Mar. 20, 2006 -  [H.R. 
                                3703]>> 

    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 at 8501 
Philatelic Drive in Spring Hill, Florida, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Staff Sergeant Michael Schafer 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 ``Staff Sergeant Michael 
Schafer Post Office Building''.

    Approved March 20, 2006.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3703:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 151 (2005):
                                    Sept. 27, considered and passed 
                                        House.
                                                        Vol. 152 (2006):
                                    Mar. 3, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### § 28.28 Lost or damaged samples.

If any samples are lost, damaged, or mutilated, the Area Director shall inform the applicant.

[52 FR 30882, Aug. 18, 1987]
#### § 29.3073 Uniformity.

An element of quality which describes the consistency of a lot of tobacco as it is prepared for market. Uniformity is expressed in grade specifications as a percentage. The percentage is applicable to group, quality, and color. (See Rule 13.)

[24 FR 8771, Oct. 29, 1959. Redesignated at 47 FR 51722, Nov. 17, 1982, 49 FR 16758, Apr. 20, 1984, and 51 FR 40407, Nov. 7, 1986]
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  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 Cascade Technologies Corp.  (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Daniel L. Farkas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to his knowledge, that:  (1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: May 10, 2012  /s/ Daniel L. FarkasName:Daniel L. FarkasTitle:Chief Executive Officer  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Cascade Technologies Corp.  and will be retained by Cascade Technologies Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.   *This certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2197 

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the 

York River and associated tributaries for study for potential inclusion 

in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2013 

Ms. PINGREE of Maine (for herself and Mr. MICHAUD) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate 

segments of the York River and associated tributaries 

for study for potential inclusion in the National Wild 

and Scenic Rivers System. 

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 ‘‘York River Wild and 

5 Scenic River Study Act of 2013’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2197 IH

1 SEC. 2. DESIGNATION FOR STUDY. 

2 Section 5(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 

3 U.S.C. 1276(a)) is amended by adding at the end the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(l) YORK RIVER, MAINE.—(A) The York 

6 River that flows 11.25 miles from its headwaters at 

7 York Pond to the mouth of the river at York Har8 bor, and all associated tributaries. 

9 ‘‘(B) The study conducted under this paragraph 

10 shall— 

11 ‘‘(i) determine the effect of the designation 

12 on— 

13 ‘‘(I) existing commercial and rec14 reational activities, such as hunting, fish15 ing, trapping, recreational shooting, motor 

16 boat use, bridge construction; 

17 ‘‘(II) the authorization, construction, 

18 operation, maintenance, or improvement of 

19 energy production and transmission infra20 structure; and 

21 ‘‘(III) the authority of State and local 

22 governments to manage those activities; 

23 and 

24 ‘‘(ii) identify— 

25 ‘‘(I) all authorities that will authorize 

26 or require the Secretary to influence local 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2197 IH

1 land use decisions (such as zoning) or 

2 place restrictions on non-Federal land if 

3 designated under this Act; 

4 ‘‘(II) all authorities that the Secretary 

5 may use to condemn property; and 

6 ‘‘(III) all private property located in 

7 the area studied under this paragraph.’’. 

8 SEC. 3. STUDY AND REPORT. 

9 Section 5(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 

10 U.S.C. 1276(b)) is amended by adding at the end the fol11 lowing: 

12 ‘‘(l) YORK RIVER, MAINE.—The study of the 

13 York River, Maine, named in paragraph (l) of sub14 section (a) shall be completed by the Secretary of 

15 the Interior and the report thereon submitted to 

16 Congress not later than 3 years after the date on 

17 which funds are made available to carry out this 

18 paragraph.’’. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the**

**Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ruth’sChris Steak House, Inc. for the quarter ended July 1, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and President of Ruth’s Chris SteakHouse, Inc., certifies 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 results of operationsof Ruth’s Chris Steak House, Inc. 

Date: August 2, 2007 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Ruth’sChris Steak House, Inc. and will be retained by Ruth’s Chris Steak House, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed August 23, 2017

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

Nos. 3D17-919 & 3D17-906

Lower Tribunal No. 05-15321

________________



### J.B., The Mother

, and M.W., The Father,

Appellants,

vs.



### Department of Children and Families, et al.

,

Appellees.

Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Cindy S.

Lederman

, Judge.

Eugene F. Zenobi, Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Third

Region, and Kevin Coyle Colbert

, Assistant Regional Counsel, for appellant J.B.,

The Mother; Thomas J. Butler, for appellant M.W., The Father.

Karla Perkins, for appellee Department of Children and Families; Laura J.

Lee (Sanford), for appellee Guardian ad Litem Program.

Before SALTER, LOGUE, and SCALES, JJ.

LOGUE, J.In this consolidated appeal, a mother and father appeal a final judgment

terminating their parental rights. Because the final order is supported by competent

substantial evidence and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the

child’s hearsay statements, we affirm.

The mother and father argue that the trial court erred in admitting several

child hearsay statements. Section 90.803(23)(a), Florida Statutes (2016),

provides

—

under specific circumstances

— for the admission of hearsay statements

from a child “with a physical, mental, emotional, or developmental age of 16 or

less” if those statements describe “any act of child abuse or neglect.” In order for a

statement to be deemed admissible, the trial court must conduct a hearing and find

that “the time, content, and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient

safeguards of reliability.” § 90.803(23)(a)(1). If the child is unavailable to testify

as a witness, the statement is admissible only if “there is other corroborative

evidence of the abuse or offense.” § 90.803(23)(a)(2)(b).

Here, the trial court made the requisite findings of reliability and

corroborative evidence under the statute in a separate written order on the

Department’s motion for admission of the child’s hearsay statements. Finding no

error in that order, we hold the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting

the statements.

2The trial court ultimately found, “[t]he child has waited his entire life for the

parents to learn to keep him safe and nurtured, the parents have failed and the child

desperately needs permanency.” Because the trial court’s detailed, twenty-five

page final order is supported by competent substantial evidence, there is no basis

for reversal.

Affirmed.

3
#### Edward C. Kesler, defendant in error, v. Frank E. Dingle, plaintiff in error.

Gen. No. 37,222.

Opinion filed November 27, 1934.

Rehearing denied December 10, 1934.

Frank E. Dingle, *pro se.*A. C. Lewis, for defendant in error.

Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.
Schedule to Stock Option Agreement



 Exhibit 10.6 
  
 Schedule to Stock Option Agreement Under Huttig Building Products, Inc. 
 1999 Stock Incentive Plan 
  

								
	        Option Holder	 	Number Of Shares	 	Exercise Price	 	Date of Grant
	R. S. Evans	 	100,000	 	$	4.290 per share	 	January 24, 2000
	Michael A. Lupo	 	100,000	 	$	7.230 per share	 	April 24, 2004
	Carl A. Liliequist	 	39,000	 	$	4.290 per share	 	January 24, 2000
	Carl A. Liliequist	 	29,400	 	$	4.300 per share	 	January 22, 2001
	Carl A. Liliequist	 	25,000	 	$	7.230 per share	 	April 24, 2004
	Thomas S. McHugh	 	15,000	 	$	4.400 per share	 	May 1, 2000
	Thomas S. McHugh	 	13,500	 	$	4.340 per share	 	January 22, 2001
	Jon P. Vrabely	 	10,000	 	$	7.230 per share	 	April 24, 2004