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

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 808 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives in support of the 

goals of National One-Stop Month. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2006 

Mr. KELLER (for himself and Mr. MCKEON) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives in 

support of the goals of National One-Stop Month. 

Whereas national workforce professional organizations and 

the local workforce investment boards will celebrate National One-Stop Month from May 1 to 31, 2006; 

Whereas workforce investment boards and One-Stop delivery 

system were created under the Workforce Investment Act 

of 1998 and are designed to provide a full range of employment solutions to employers and job seekers in a single location; 

Whereas more than 600 workforce investment boards and 

2,000 One-Stop Career Centers are enhancing the productivity and competitiveness of the Nation by providing 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 808 IH

workforce solutions for hundreds of thousands of employers annually across the United States; 

Whereas, in the spirit of the Workforce Investment Act, the 

cornerstones of maximizing customer choice, employment 

and training solutions, and universal access are the primary missions of the One-Stop delivery system, allowing 

more than 14,000,000 job seekers annually the opportunity to connect with the tools they need for their next 

career opportunity; 

Whereas each year the One-Stop delivery system and regional 

workforce investment boards contribute to the competitiveness of the Nation’s workforce by providing training 

assistance through grants to job seekers and employed 

workers and other programs to more than 400,000 Americans so they may upgrade or acquire new skills; and 

Whereas, in the spirit of the Workforce Investment Act, the 

private sector leadership of the regional workforce investment boards provides the planning, oversight, and accountability of workforce strategies that succeed in communities across the country: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the goals of National One-Stop 

3 Month; and 

4 (2) supports the efforts of the workforce invest5 ment boards and One-Stop delivery system in pre6 paring the Nation’s workforce. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
§ 160.110 Frozen eggs. ( a ) Frozen eggs, frozen whole eggs, frozen mixed eggs is the food prepared by freezing liquid eggs that conform to § 160.115, with such precautions that the finished food is free of viable *Salmonella* microorganisms.
( b ) Monosodium phosphate or monopotassium phosphate may be added either directly or in a water carrier, but the amount added does not exceed 0.5 percent of the weight of the frozen eggs. If a water carrier is used, it shall contain not less than 50 percent by weight of such monosodium phosphate or monopotassium phosphate.
( c ) When one of the optional ingredients specified in paragraph (b) of this section is used, the label shall bear the statement “Monosodium phosphate (or monopotassium phosphate) added to preserve color”, or, in case the optional ingredient used is added in a water carrier, the statement shall be “Monosodium phosphate (or monopotassium phosphate), with __ percent water as a carrier, added to preserve color”, the blank being filled in to show the percent by weight of water used in proportion to the weight of the finished food. The statement declaring the optional ingredient used shall appear on the principal display panel or panels with such prominence and conspicuousness as to render it likely to be read and understood under customary conditions of purchase.
( d ) *Label declaration.* Each of the ingredients used in the food shall be declared on the label as required by the applicable sections of parts 101 and 130 of this chapter.
[42 FR 14462, Mar. 15, 1977, as amended at 58 FR 2883, Jan. 6, 1993]
Editorial Note on Part 184
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 184 appear at 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; 66 FR 66742, Dec. 27, 2001; 68 FR 15355, Mar. 31, 2003; 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004; 70 FR 40880, July 15, 2005; 70 FR 67651, Nov. 8, 2005; and 81 FR 49897, July 29, 2016.

§ 184.1271 L-Cysteine. ( a ) L-Cysteine is the chemical L-2-amino-3-mercaptopropanoic acid (C3H7O2NS).
( b ) The ingredient meets the appropriate part of the specification set forth in the “Food Chemicals Codex,” 3d Ed. (1981), pp. 92-93, which is incorporated by reference. Copies may be obtained from the National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20418, or may be examined at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html .*
( c ) The ingredient is used to supply up to 0.009 part of total L-cysteine per 100 parts of flour in dough as a dough strengthener as defined in § 170.3(o)(6) of this chapter in yeast-leavened baked goods and baking mixes as defined in § 170.3(n)(1) of this chapter.
( d ) This regulation is issued prior to a general evaluation of use of this ingredient in order to affirm as GRAS the specific use named.
[42 FR 14653, Mar. 15, 1977, as amended at 49 FR 5612, Feb. 14, 1984]
§ 182.1047 Glutamic acid hydrochloride. ( a ) *Product.* Glutamic acid hydrochloride.
( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Limitations, restrictions, or explanation.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used as a salt substitute in accordance with good manufacturing practice.
2002 ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

        Pursuant to the governing documents including but not limited to various
Pooling  and  Servicing  Agreements  and Sales  and  Servicing  Agreement  ("the
Agreements"),  where Residential Funding Corporation ("the Master Servicer") has
been appointed Master Servicer, an annual statement of compliance is required to
be delivered to either the Trustee or the Investor.  The undersigned Director of
Residential Funding Corporation, hereby certifies that:

        (i)    a review of the  activities  of the  Master  Servicer  during the
               preceding  calendar year has been conducted,  and the performance
               of duties  outlined  in the  Agreements  has been made  under the
               undersigned officers' supervision;

        (ii)   to the best of the undersigned officers' knowledge,  based on the
               aforementioned  review, the Master Servicer has complied with the
               minimum  servicing  standards  set forth in the USAP for Mortgage
               Bankers,  and  has  fulfilled  off  of its  material  obligations
               relating to the  Agreements in all material  respects  throughout
               such year; and

        (iii)  to  the  best  of  the  undersigned  officers'  knowledge,   each
               Subservicer has complied with the minimum servicing standards set
               forth in the USAP for Mortgage Bankers,  and has fulfilled all of
               its  material  obligations  relating  to  the  Agreements  in all
               material respects throughout such year.


Dated: March  31, 2003






/s/Robert L. Appel
Robert L. Appel
Director,  Master Servicing







/s/Darsi Meyer
Darsi Meyer
Director, Securities Administration

<PAGE>
**Exhibit 34.3**

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Directors 

Cenlar FSB: 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management Assessment, that Cenlar FSB (the Company) complied with the servicingcriteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the residential mortgage loans platform as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014 except for 1122 (d)(1)(iii), whichthe Company has determined is not applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the servicing platform covered by this report See Appendix A of Management’s Assessment for the asset backed transactions covered by thisplatform Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria based onour examination. 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified PublicAccountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing suchother procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset backed transactions and securities that comprise the platform, testing of less than all of the servicingactivities related to the Platform and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selectedtransactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affectedthe balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Ourexamination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’sassertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014, for the residential mortgage loans platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

February 27, 2015
Exhibit 21.1
  DOMESTIC SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY:
 STATE OFNAME OF SUBSIDIARY
    
    INCORPORATIONPCT International Holdings Inc.
    
    DelawareFlavors Holdings Inc.
    
    DelawareMafco Worldwide Corporation
    
    DelawareMafco Shanghai Corporation
    
    DelawareEVD Holdings Inc.
    
    DelawarePneumo Abex LLC
    
    DelawareConcord Pacific Corporation
    
    MainePneumo Abex Lessee Corp.
    
    DelawareCA Acquisition Holdings Inc.
    
    DelawareHarland Clarke Holdings Corp.
    
    DelawareHarland Clarke Corp.
    
    DelawareChecks In The Mail, Inc.
    
    DelawareHFS Scantron Holdings Corp.
    
    New YorkScantron Corporation
    
    DelawareHarland Financial Solutions, Inc.
    
    OregonHFS Research & Development, Inc.
    
    DelawareJohn H. Harland Company of Puerto Rico
    
    GeorgiaCentralia Holdings Corporation
    
    GeorgiaCreate-It!, Inc.
    
    IllinoisSubscriberMail, LLC
    
    IllinoisParsam Technologies, LLC
    
    TennesseeHarland Financial Solutions India, LLC
    
    DelawareSpectrum K12 School Solutions, Inc.
    
    Delaware
 FOREIGN SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY:
 NAME OF SUBSIDIARY
    
    JURISDICTIONEVD Holdings S.A.
    
    FranceExtraits Vegetaux Et Derives, S.A.
    
    FranceWei Feng Enterprises Ltd.
    
    British Virgin IslandsXianyang Concord Natural Products Co. Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of ChinaZhangjiagang Free Trade Zone MAFCO Liantai Biotech Co., Ltd.
    
    Peoples Republic of ChinaScantron Canada, Ltd.
    
    CanadaHarland Israel Ltd.
    
    IsraelHarland Financial Solutions Worldwide Limited
    
    IrelandSRC Software Private Ltd.
    
    India
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4838

TYUANE KANYATTE FOY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

William L. Osteen, District Judge.

(CR-01-175)

Submitted: January 31, 2003

Decided: February 14, 2003

Before LUTTIG and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Sofie Wonderly Hosford, HOSFORD & HOSFORD, P.L.L.C., Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United

States Attorney, Robert A. J. Lang, Assistant United States Attorney,

Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Tyuane Kanyatte Foy appeals his conviction and 120-month sentence following a jury trial on a single count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). Foy

was arrested following a car chase in which the rear passenger discarded a nylon bag containing a firearm. On appeal, Foy claims the

district court improperly denied his motions for acquittal as the

United States failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove he had

actual or constructive possession of that firearm. For the reasons that

follow, we affirm his conviction.

This Court reviews a district court’s denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal de novo to ascertain whether the evidence is sufficient for any rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the

crime beyond a reasonable doubt in the light most favorable to the

Government. United States v. Romer, 148 F.3d 359, 364 (4th Cir.

1998). In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this court does

not weigh the sufficiency of the evidence or assess the credibility of

witnesses and must assume the jury resolved all contradictions in

favor of the Government. Id.

With these standards in mind, we conclude there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Foy possessed the firearm in question. Testimony at trial indicated Foy,

wearing a jacket with white sleeves, was seated behind the driver of

the car both before and after the chase and that an arm in a white

sleeve discarded the bag from the rear window on the driver’s side.

We find this circumstantial evidence sufficient to support the jury’s

finding that Foy possessed the firearm. See United States v. Schocket,

753 F.2d 336, 340 (4th Cir. 1985) (discussing possession of narcotics). 

2 UNITED STATES v. FOY
Accordingly, we affirm Foy’s conviction. 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

UNITED STATES v. FOY 3
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON DC 

Jet Center Partners, LLC 

Complainant, 

v. 

County of Montrose, Colorado 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER 

FAA Docket No. 16-15-11 

On August 26, FAA docketed the Complaint filed on behalf of Jet Center Partners, LLC 

(Complainant) against the County of Montrose, Colorado (Respondent) under the Rules of 

Practice for Federally Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings, Title 14 of the CFR part 

16 (14 CFR Part 16) in the above-captioned Docket. 

On September 17, FAA docketed Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment. 

On October 9, FAA docketed Complainant's Answer to the Respondent's Motion for 

Summary Judgment. 

On October 30, FAA received Respondent's Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of 

Summary Judgment, and accompanying Reply with exhibits .. 

On November 3, FAA received an email from counsel for Complainant in opposition to 

Respondent's Motion, and advising that no further document or argument will be filed. 

Part 16 is intended to expedite substantially the handling and disposition of airport-related 

complaints. [See, Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement 

Proceedings, Final Rule, 61 Fed. Reg. 53998 (October 16, 1996).] The rule provides that 

Director may issue an Order extending any time period prescribed where necessary or 

appropriate for a fair and complete consideration of matters before the agency. See 14 

CFR. § 16.11(a). 

The Director finds that an extension of time is necessary and appropriate for full 

consideration of the Motions before the agency. 
Accordingly, the Director hereby extends the time for issuance of an Order disposing of 

the Motions until November 20, 2015. 

Randall S. Fiertz Date 

Director, Office of Airport 

Compliance and Management Analysis 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November~· 2015, I caused to be placed in the United 

States mail (first class, postage paid) or personally delivered a true copy of the foregoing 

Order addressed to: 

Counsel for Complainant 

Leonard D. Kirsch 

Shelley A. Ewalt 

McBreen & Kopko 

500 North Broadway, Suite 129 

Jericho, NY 11753 

Counsel for Respondent 

Bobbee J. Musgrave 

Stephen D. Rynerson 

Bryan Cave LLP 

1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 41 00 

Denver, CO 80203-4541 

Carolyn Clawson 

County Attorney 

County of Montrose, Colorado 

161 S. Townsend Avenue 

Montrose, Colorado 81401 

Hand-Delivered to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket (AGC-600) 

FAA Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis (A CO-l 00) 

(J{~ Claudia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1095 Referred in House (RFH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1095

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 14, 2005

               Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend chapter 113 of title 18, United States Code, to clarify the 
  prohibition on the trafficking in goods or services, 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. TRAFFICKING DEFINED.

    (a) Counterfeit Goods or Services.--Section 2320(e) of title 18, 
United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
            ``(2) the term `traffic' means to transport, transfer, or 
        otherwise dispose of, to another, for purposes of commercial 
        advantage or private financial gain, or to make, import, 
        export, obtain control of, or possess, with intent to so 
        transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of;''; and
            (2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4) and 
        inserting the following:
            ``(3) the term `financial gain' includes the receipt, or 
        expected receipt, of anything of value; and''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Sound recordings and music videos of live musical 
        performances.--Section 2319A(e) of title 18, United States 
        Code, is amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the 
        following:
            ``(2) the term `traffic' has the same meaning as in section 
        2320(e) of this title.''.
            (2) Counterfeit labels for phonorecords, computer programs, 
        etc.--Section 2318(b) of title 18, United States Code, is 
        amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
            ``(2) the term `traffic' has the same meaning as in section 
        2320(e) of this title;''.
            (3) Anti-bootlegging.--Section 1101 of title 17, United 
        States Code, is amended by striking subsection (b) and 
        inserting the following:
    ``(b) Definition.--As used in this section, the term `traffic' has 
the same meaning as in section 2320(e) of title 18, United States 
Code.''.

            Passed the Senate November 10, 2005.

            Attest:

                                             EMILY J. REYNOLDS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
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 Quarterly Report of First Health Group Corp. (the
 "Company") on Form 10-Q, as amended by Form 10-Q/A, for the period ended
 June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
 date hereof (the "Report"), I, Edward L. Wristen, Chief Executive Officer
 of the Company, do hereby 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/ Edward L. Wristen
 -----------------------
 Edward L. Wristen
 Chief Executive Officer
 August 15, 2002
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Regina Faye BROOKS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-6570.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 31, 2005.

Decided Sept. 27, 2005.

Regina Faye Brooks, Appellant pro se. Sherry L. Muncy, Office of the United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Regina Faye Brooks seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation advising the district court to deny Brooks’ motion for supplemental briefing and to deny relief on Brooks’ 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 546, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The report and recommendation Brooks seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

*DISMISSED*