alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
H. Res. 451 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 18, 2017. 

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 

declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 

House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 

(H.R. 806) to facilitate efficient State implementation of 

ground-level ozone standards, and for other purposes. The 

first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 

order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 

hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 

minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 

amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill, it 

shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment 

in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
2 

•HRES 451 EH 

Committee Print 115–26. That amendment in the nature of 

a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 

against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 

waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of 

a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. 

Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 

printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided 

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not 

be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 

Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 

amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 

the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 

the bill to the House with such amendments as may have 

been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in 

the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of 

the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of 

a substitute made in order as original text. The previous 

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening mo-
3 

•HRES 451 EH 

tion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
IV 

House Calendar No. 34

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 255

[Report No. 109–70] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1185) to reform the Federal 

deposit insurance system, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 3, 2005

Mr. SESSIONS, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1185) to reform 

the Federal deposit insurance system, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 

2 resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of 

3 rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee 

4 of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consider5 ation of the bill (H.R. 1185) to reform the Federal deposit 

6 insurance system, and for other purposes. The first read7 ing of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 

8 against consideration of the bill are waived. General de-
2

HRES 255 RH 

1 bate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 

2 hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 

3 ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial 

4 Services. After general debate the bill shall be considered 

5 for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 

6 order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 

7 amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in 

8 the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee 

9 on Financial Services now printed in the bill. Each section 

10 of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 

11 shall be considered as read. During consideration of the 

12 bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of 

13 the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis 

14 of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused 

15 it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record 

16 designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. 

17 Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At 

18 the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment 

19 the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 

20 with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 

21 Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 

22 amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 

23 bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 

24 substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 

25 ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final pas-
3

HRES 255 RH 

1 sage without intervening motion except one motion to re2 commit with or without instructions. 
House Calendar No. 34

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 255

[Report No. 109–70] 

RESOLUTION

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1185) 

and for other purposes. to reform the Federal deposit insurance system, 

MAY 3, 2005

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No: 12-3084

State of Nebraska

 Petitioner

v.

United States Environmental Protection Agency and Gina McCarthy, Administrator, United 

States Environmental Protection Agency

 Respondents

Sierra Club, et al.

 Intervenors

 No: 12-3085 

 National Parks Conservation Association and Sierra Club

 Petitioners 

 v. 

 United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al.

 Respondents 

 Nebraska Public Power District and State of Nebraska

 Intervenors

______________________________________________________________________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the Environmental Protection Administration

(EPA-R07-OAR-2012-0158)

(EPA-R07-OAR-2012-0158)

______________________________________________________________________________

Appellate Case: 12-3084 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/19/2015 Entry ID: 4256313 
ORDER

 Respondents' motion for an order remanding, without vacatur, a portion of the final 

action in these consolidated petitions, to allow the EPA to provide a more detailed and complete 

explanation of its decision is granted. It is further ordered that the motion of the Petitioners 

National Parks Conservation Association, et al., to set a briefing schedule and resume briefing is 

also granted.

 The intervenors' briefs are due April 10, 2015 and the final reply briefs by NPCA and the

State of Nebraska are due May 1, 2015.

March 19, 2015

Order Entered at the Direction of the Court: 

Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. 

____________________________________ 

 /s/ Michael E. Gans 

Appellate Case: 12-3084 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/19/2015 Entry ID: 4256313
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alvaro Doronzoro,

Appellant. — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on January 31, 1978, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. (See *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Ross, Markewich, Silverman and Bloom, JJ.-
#### S. J. Capelin Associates, Inc., Respondent, v. Globe Manufacturing Corporation, Appellant.

Order entered on February 26, 1970, granting plaintiff’s motion for a temporary injunction and denying its cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously modified on the law -and on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of vacating the temporary injunction, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The order entered on April 1, 1970, denying reargument or rehearing is unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The defendant if so advised may set up lack of jurisdiction by way of defense in its answer. On this record, the plaintiff has not shown a clear right to the relief granted *(Park Terrace Caterers*v. *McDonough,*9 A D 2d 113), nor has there been established a factual demonstration of irreparable injury *(Kane*v. *Walsh,*295 N. Y. 198, 205, 206). Concur — Stevens, P. J., Eager, Capozzoli, Nunez and McNally, JJ.
From: Elineth Torres/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Keith Barnett/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Samudra Vijay/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 08/06/2009 12:45 PM

Subject: ISIS_NESHAP_Docket Files

Keith,

Please find attached the ISIS files to be posted in the Portland Cement NESHAP docket. Please let me 

know they will load each file in the zip folder as an individual entry in the docket or if they can load it as on 

folder with all the files to run the model on it, Please let me know, if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Elineth Torres

Environmental Protection Specialist

U.S. EPA

OAQPS/SPPD/Program Design Group

109 T.W. Alexander Dr. 

Durham, NC 27711

Phone: 919-541-4347

Fax: 919-541-5600

Note the ISIS Model files could not be loaded electronically into the Docket. Contact the docket 

office at 202-566-1744 to obtain a copy of these files.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

EASTERN DIVISION 

BERTHA ALLEN, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Civil Action No. 3:06-cv-00772-WKW-DRB 

 ) 

TALLAPOOSA COUNTY ) 

JAIL STAFF, et al. ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THEIR SPECIAL 

REPORT AND ANSWER

COME NOW Jimmy Abbett, Kenny Sherrer, Blake Jennings, Jason Cowart, Patricia 

Guthrie, Chris Nail, and Dodi Shaddix, the Defendants in the above-styled cause, and move this 

Honorable Court for an extension of time of 40 days in which to file their Special Report and 

Answer. As grounds for said Motion, the Defendants state as follows: 

1. On August 30, 2006, this Court entered an Order directing the Defendants to file a 

Special Report in the above-styled cause on or before October 9, 2006. Defendants Shaddix, 

Abbett, Jennings, Cowart, Guthrie, and Sherrer’s Answers are due on October 12, 2006. 

Defendant Nail’s Answer is due on October 17, 2006. 

2. Counsel for the Defendants is in need of this additional time to fully review the 

documentation which is potentially relevant to this case in order to fully respond to the Plaintiff’s 

allegations and provide this Court with a meaningful Special Report. 

3. The Defendants have not previously requested an extension of time in this case. 

4. The Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by the requested extension. 

Case 3:06-cv-00772-WKW-TFM Document 8 Filed 09/21/2006 Page 1 of 2
2

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Defendants respectfully request this 

Honorable Court grant their Motion for Extension of Time to file their Special Report and 

Answer up to and including November 20, 2006. 

Respectfully submitted this 21st day of September, 2006. 

s/Amanda Kay Morgan 

AMANDA KAY MORGAN Bar No. ALL079 

Attorney for Defendants 

WEBB & ELEY, P.C. 

7475 Halcyon Pointe Drive 

Post Office Box 240909 

Montgomery, Alabama 36124 

Telephone: (334) 262-1850 

Fax: (334) 262-1889 

E-mail: amorgan@webbeley.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on this the 21st day of September, 2006, I have electronically filed 

the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, and that I have mailed a 

true and correct copy of the foregoing by United States Mail, postage prepaid, to the following 

non-CM/ECF participant: 

Bertha Allen 

AIS 134004 

Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women 

8966 U. S. Highway 231 North 

Wetumpka, AL 36092 

 s/Amanda Kay Morgan 

 OF COUNSEL 

Case 3:06-cv-00772-WKW-TFM Document 8 Filed 09/21/2006 Page 2 of 2
#### HURD v. GREENLAWN CEMETERY ASS’N et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 10, 1914.)

Action by George B. Hurd, etc., against the Greenlawn Cemetery Association and others.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed. See, also, 148 N. Y. Supp. 1122.
Editorial Note on Part 63
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 63 appear at 81 FR 86909, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 63.133 Design testing. ( a ) During the early or developmental stages of construction, a program for testing of engineered systems and components used in the design, such as, for example, borehole and shaft seals, backfill, and drip shields, as well as the thermal interaction effects of the waste packages, backfill, drip shields, rock, and unsaturated zone and saturated zone water, must be conducted.
( b ) The testing must be initiated as early as practicable.
( c ) If backfill is included in the repository design, a test must be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of backfill placement and compaction procedures against design requirements before permanent backfill placement is begun.
( d ) Tests must be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of borehole, shaft, and ramp seals before full-scale operation proceeds to seal boreholes, shafts, and ramps.
#### § 501.130 Purpose and scope.

This subpart establishes procedures for filing a formal request for and the issuance of an interpretation of a rule, order or other action by DOE. Any response, whether oral or written, to a general inquiry, or to other than a formal written request for interpretation filed with DOE, is not an interpretation and merely provides general information that may not be relied upon in any proceeding to determine compliance with the applicable requirements of FUA.
###### Editorial Note on Part 51

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 51 appear at 80 FR 74980, Dec. 1, 2015.

#### § 51.5 Interpretations.

Except as specifically authorized by the Commission in writing, no interpretation of the regulations in this part by any officer or employee of the Commission other than a written interpretation by the General Counsel will be recognized to be binding upon the Commission.
Editorial Note on Part 32
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 32 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 32.25 Conditions of licenses issued under § 32.22: Quality control, labeling, and reports of transfer. Each person licensed under § 32.22 shall: ( a ) Carry out adequate control procedures in the manufacture of the product to assure that each production lot meets the quality control standards approved by the Commission;
( b ) Label or mark each unit so that the manufacturer, processor, producer, or initial transferor of the product and the byproduct material in the product can be identified; and
( c ) Maintain records of all transfers and file a report with the Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards by an appropriate method listed in § 30.6(a) of this chapter, including in the address: ATTN: Document Control Desk/Exempt Distribution. ( 1 ) The report must clearly identify the specific licensee submitting the report and include the license number of the specific licensee.
( 2 ) The report must indicate that the products are transferred for use under § 30.19 of this chapter or equivalent regulations of an Agreement State.
( 3 ) The report must include the following information on products transferred to other persons for use under § 30.19 or equivalent regulations of an Agreement State: ( i ) A description or identification of the type of each product and the model number(s);
( ii ) For each radionuclide in each type of product and each model number, the total quantity of the radionuclide;
( iii ) The number of units of each type of product transferred during the reporting period by model number.
( 4 ) ( i ) The licensee shall file the report, covering the preceding calendar year, on or before January 31 of each year. In its first report after December 17, 2007, the licensee shall separately include data for transfers in prior years not previously reported to the Commission.
( ii ) Licensees who permanently discontinue activities authorized by the license issued under § 32.22 shall file a report for the current calendar year within 30 days after ceasing distribution.
( 5 ) If no transfers of byproduct material have been made under § 32.22 during the reporting period, the report must so indicate.
( 6 ) The licensee shall maintain the record of a transfer for one year after the transfer is included in a report to the Commission.
[34 FR 9027, June 6, 1969, as amended at 43 FR 6923, Feb. 17, 1978; 48 FR 12334, Mar. 24, 1983; 68 FR 58804, Oct. 10, 2003; 72 FR 58488, Oct. 16, 2007; 73 FR 5719, Jan. 31, 2008; 73 FR 42673, July 23, 2008]
V2/13/20 U U 2 3 FA X 202433514 2 FA A ^ DM S 1 ^ y0 I / k i y

MEMORAMDU M 

## -i'-KARTMEHTO F ';.-KROPERMiON S n>:c1 3 P 3

^ 5 S T o th e File ; Re : I n th e Matte ro fBric e Thompson , FA A2011-1119 , 2011WP11001 4 Date ; 12/13/201 1 I , Vick i S . Leemon , a m recusin g mysel ffro m thi s case . Consequently , i fa part yt o thi s cas e appeal s fro m a n initia l decisio n o fth e Administrativ e La wJudge , I wil l no t participat e i n deliberation s o rdraftin g o fa fina l agenc ydecision .

Vick i S . teen^ n
§ 600.331 Requirements. The following requirements pertain to recipients' procurements funded in whole or in part with Federal funds or with recipients' cost-share or match: ( a ) *Reasonable cost.* Recipients' procurement procedures must use best commercial practices to ensure reasonable cost for procured goods and services. Recipients are encouraged to buy commercial items, if practicable.
( b ) *Pre-award review of certain procurements.* If the contracting officer determines that there is a compelling need to perform a pre-award review of a specific transaction and the terms of the award identify the specific transaction and provide for such a review, then the recipient must obtain the contracting officer's approval prior to awarding the transaction and must provide the contracting officer the following documents to review: ( 1 ) Request for proposals or invitation to bid, if any;
( 2 ) Cost estimate;
( 3 ) Proposal/bid;
( 4 ) Proposed award document; and
( 5 ) Summary of negotiations or justification for award.
( c ) *Contract provisions.* ( 1 ) Contracts in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold must contain contractual provisions or conditions that allow for administrative, contractual, or legal remedies in instances in which a contractor violates or breaches the contract terms, and provide for such remedial actions as may be appropriate.
( 2 ) All contracts in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold must contain suitable provisions for termination for default by the recipient and for termination due to circumstances beyond the control of the contractor.
( 3 ) All negotiated contracts in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold must include a provision permitting access of DOE, the Inspector General, the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives, to any books, documents, papers, and records of the contractor that are directly pertinent to a specific programs, for the purpose of making audits, examinations, excerpts, transcriptions, and copies of such documents.
( 4 ) All contracts, including those for amounts less than the simplified acquisition threshold, awarded by recipients and their contractors must contain the procurement provisions of Appendix B to this subpart, as applicable.
( d ) *Recipient responsibilities.* The recipient is the responsible authority, without recourse to DOE, regarding the settlement and satisfaction of all contractual and administrative issues arising out of procurements entered into in support of an award. This includes disputes, claims, protests of award, source evaluation or other matters of a contractual nature. The recipient should refer matters concerning violations of statutes to such Federal, State or local authority as may have proper jurisdiction.
Reports and Records
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.12

                            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 this Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of ImClone
Systems Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September
30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Michael J. Howerton, Vice President, Finance and Business
Development, Secretary and Acting Chief Financial Officer 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:

    (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 operations of the
        Company.

/S/ MICHAEL J. HOWERTON
---------------------------
Michael J. Howerton
Acting Chief Financial Officer
June 23, 2003
SEMT 2013-2

 

EX-31 Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certification.

 

I, Jeremy P. Strom, certify that:

 

1.	I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2013-2 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.	Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.	Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.	Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5.	All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: CoreLogic Tax Services, LLC (“CoreLogic”), American Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure Insurance Agency, Inc. (collectively, “Assurant”), Cenlar, FSB as Servicer, First Republic Bank as Servicer, PHH Mortgage Corporation as Servicer, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Custodian and Master Servicer, Computershare Trust Company, N.A. as Custodian and Master Servicer, and Citibank, N.A. as Securities Administrator and Paying Agent.

 

Date: March 30, 2023

 

 

/s/ Jeremy P. Strom

Signature

 

President

(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)

 

----