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



Exhibit 3.1.2
 BYLAWS of
COLUMBIA BANCORP
 ARTICLE I  MEETINGS




---



##### 



ARTICLE II  DIRECTORS
  2.2




---



##### 



ARTICLE Ill  COMMITTEES
   ARTICLE IV  OFFICERS




---



##### 



ARTICLE V  CORPORATE STOCK




---



##### 



ARTICLE VI  INDEMNIFICATION
  ARTICLE VII  GENERAL PROVISIONS
   of




---



#####
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1076 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1076

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the excise tax and 
          income tax credits for the production of biodiesel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 19, 2005

  Mrs. Lincoln (for herself and Mr. Talent) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the excise tax and 
          income tax credits for the production of biodiesel.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF THE EXCISE TAX AND INCOME TAX CREDITS FOR THE 
              PRODUCTION OF BIODIESEL.

    (a) Excise Tax Credit.--
            (1) In general.--Section 6426(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue 
        Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``2006'' and inserting 
        ``2010''.
            (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 6427(e)(3)(B) of such 
        Code is amended by striking ``2006'' and inserting ``2010''.
    (b) Income Tax Credit.--Section 40A(e) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 is amended by striking ``2006'' and inserting ``2010''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 1114.11 Withdrawal by applicant. ( a ) An applicant may at any time make a written request using the appropriate form to withdraw a PMTA that FDA has not acted on as described in § 1114.29. The withdrawal request must state: ( 1 ) Whether the withdrawal is due to a health concern related to the tobacco product and, if so, a description of those concerns, including the extent, duration, and frequency of the health effects, and what gave rise to the concerns, such as reports of adverse experiences;
( 2 ) The application STN; and
( 3 ) The name(s) of the new tobacco product that is the subject of the application.
( b ) An application will be considered withdrawn when FDA issues an acknowledgement letter stating that the application has been withdrawn.
( c ) The application is an Agency record, even if withdrawn. FDA will retain the withdrawn application under Federal Agency records schedules. The availability of the withdrawn application will be subject to FDA's public information regulation in Part 20 of this chapter.
[No. 20535-1-II.

Division Two.

December 5, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Michael Herrara, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 95-1-02916-9, Waldo F. Stone, J., entered December 20, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Bridgewater, J., concurred in by Houghton, C.J., and Armstrong, J.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7191 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Transportation to require States to set aside certain funds to carry out highway 

safety improvement projects to reduce the number of injuries and fatalities at high-risk pedestrian crossings. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2024 

Mr. CAREY (for himself and Mrs. SYKES) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Transportation to require States to set aside 

certain funds to carry out highway safety improvement 

projects to reduce the number of injuries and fatalities 

at high-risk pedestrian crossings. 

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 ‘‘Save Our Pedestrians 

5 Act of 2024’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7191 IH

1 SEC. 2. SET-ASIDE FOR HIGH-RISK PEDESTRIAN CROSS2 INGS. 

3 Section 148 of title 23, United States Code, is 

4 amended by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(m) SET-ASIDE FOR HIGH-RISK PEDESTRIAN

6 CROSSINGS.— 

7 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Of the funds apportioned 

8 to a State under section 104(b)(3) for fiscal year 

9 2025 and each fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary 

10 shall require that an amount equal to 5 percent of 

11 such funds shall be expended on highway safety im12 provement projects carried out to reduce the number 

13 of injuries and fatalities at high-risk pedestrian 

14 crossings. 

15 ‘‘(2) HIGH-RISK PEDESTRIAN CROSSING DE16 FINED.—In this subsection, the term ‘high-risk pe17 destrian crossing’ means a pedestrian crossing on a 

18 highway identified by the State, in consultation with 

19 units of local government within such State, as hav20 ing a high frequency of injuries or fatalities result21 ing from an incident between a motor vehicle and a 

22 pedestrian.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
**Aug~st16,** 2012 Michael 0. Matthews ChiefFinancial Officer GreatLakes Aviation, Ltd. 1022 Airport Parkway Cheyenne, WY 82001 

### l't'U•·J40"5 l

## 't1,·l102..- Re: EAS OST 1997**29~Qr** and OST**199~** l@Q,g Town ofSilver City, et al. Dear Mr. Matthews, 

### '' ·,J1 ., r 1..1 L 'I 

## 1l 

## II: Ol

I am TownAttorney for the Town ofSilver City and will be the initial contact for EAS matters. The Town is in receipt ofGreat Lakes' proposal, and in the absence·ofa narrative, the Town has a few questions that need to be answered prior to the Town making its comments.
Your proposal eliminates Albuquerque as a hub and proposes Denver/Phoenix in substitution.

- Is it the intention ofGreatLakes to loop Phoenix with Denver so that Silver City/Grant County passengers will have both hubs at their disposal on any given flight ?

- Ifnot, then are you leaving it to the Town in this EAS proceeding to indicate its preference ofone hub rather than the other ?

- Does GreatLakes favor one hub over the other ?

- Will there be any intermediate stops between Grant County Airport and the two mentioned hubs, specifically Albuquerque and/or Santa Fe ?
The Town is also aware that GreatLakes had been in contact with Clovis where the issue of havingTSA representatives on the ground as a condition to particular hub service was discussed. Is it cOntemplated that Grant County will require the presence ofTSA personnel as a condition to interline with carriers in Phoenix or Denver? Further, will passengers flying through the mentioned 

### I hubs be able to check baggage to their ultimate destinations ?

### ·TheTown ofSilver City is a bit disappointed that there has been little, ifany, directcontact with GreatLakes. It was unfortunate that the Town had to learn about the Notice ofTermination without a courtesy call, with no apparent interest on the part ofGreatLakes to engage in preliminary negotiations for mutual benefit. The efforts at communication and cooperation that your airline exhibited when it first appeared in Silver City have disappeared. The Town hopes that your airline will reverse this trend and workits way back to a more productive relationship, especially during this period ofreassessment. A good start would be an expeditious and full response to the questions posed herein. Very truly yours,
Robert L. 

### Scavron TownAttorney



### - . . . OIT·lqt:Url't02.
.. pc: Brian Swanson, for filing in Dockets**~~T** 1997**29~Ql O~T**  199g**lBO~** 

### OST 1996-1903 Hon. Senator Bingaman
DISMISS and Opinion Filed March 15, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-21-00086-CV

BRIDGET PARSON, Appellant

V.

BECKY COLE, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-15-01563-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Goldstein

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns

As reflected in her notice of appeal and amended notice of appeal, appellant 

appeals from the trial court’s order denying her motion to recuse and a proposed

order appointing a post-judgment receiver. Because it appeared these orders are 

not subject to appeal, the Court questioned its jurisdiction over this appeal. We 

instructed appellant to file a letter brief addressing the Court’s concern. Appellant 

complied.

An order denying a motion to recuse is reviewable only from appeal of a 

final judgment. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(j)(1)(A). Additionally, a non-signed 
–2–

proposed order appointing a post-judgment receiver presents nothing for review as 

only signed judgments are appealable. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1 (appellate 

timetable runs from the date the judgment is signed).

Although appellant filed a letter brief, she fails to demonstrate this Court’s 

jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

210086F.P05

/Robert D. Burns, III/

ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

BRIDGET PARSON, Appellant

No. 05-21-00086-CV V.

BECKY COLE, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 2, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-15-01563-

B.

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Burns. Justices Molberg and Goldstein 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 15th day of March, 2021.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. THOMAS ALONZO RICHARDSON, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 288 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 20th day of August, 2014, the Petition for All owance of Appeal is DENIED
.
§ 1500.16 Notice of receipt of Dispute to Affected Entity. Within 15 calendar days of receiving the Dispute, the DDO will provide the Affected Entity a written notice, sent electronically, acknowledging receipt of the Dispute. ( a ) *Timely Disputes.* If the Dispute was timely submitted, the notice of acknowledgement may identify any additional information or documentation that is required for a thorough consideration of the Dispute. The notice should provide no more than 30 calendar days for the Affected Entity to provide the requested information. If it is not feasible to identify such information or documentation in the notice the DDO may request it at a later point in time prior to issuance of the Dispute decision.
( b ) *Untimely Disputes.* If the DDO did not receive the Dispute within the required 30-day period, or any extension of it, the DDO will notify the Affected Entity that the Dispute is being dismissed as untimely and the Agency Decision of the AO becomes final. The dismissal of an untimely Dispute constitutes the final agency action. In appropriate circumstances, the DDO may, as a matter of discretion, consider an untimely Dispute if doing so would be in the interests of fairness and equity.
[85 FR 61575, Sept. 30, 2020]
From: "Frey, Nathan J." <Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov>

To: Lori Stewart/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Karl Simon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 05/10/2011 02:23 PM

Subject: EO 12866 Interagency Comments - E15 misfueling rule

Attached please find interagency comments under EO 12866 for the E15 misfueling rule (2060-AQ17). 

Please let me know if you have any questions.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

 OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

July 21, 2011

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Meeting with Environment Canada

FROM: Angela Cullen, Mechanical Engineer

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162

This memorandum documents a meeting held on March 18, 2011 between Environment Canada

and EPA and included the following individuals:

Environment Canada: Stephan Couroux and Luis Phillipe

EPA: Byron Bunker and Angela Cullen

The discussion focused primarily on aerodynamic testing of heavy duty programs at Natural 

Resources Canada and Transport Canada.
EXHIBIT 32.2





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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Southwall
Technologies Inc. (the “Company”), for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Mallorie Burak, the Principal Financial Officer of the Company, 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.







August
      13, 2008
            By:
            /s/
      Mallorie BurakMallorie
      BurakChief
      Accounting Officer








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.





In
accordance with Item 601 of Regulation S-K, this certification is being
“furnished” as Exhibit 32.2 to the Company's quarterly report and shall not be
deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the “Exchange Act”) or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section,
nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as expressly set forth by
specific reference in such a filing.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7323

CECIL ANDERSON, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

WARDEN ROUSE; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, 

 Respondents - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. 

(1:08-cv-00406-CCB) 

Submitted: October 23, 2009 Decided: November 17, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Cecil Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Cecil Anderson seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Anderson has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
§ 182.300 What must I do to comply with this part if I am an individual recipient? As a condition of receiving a Federal agency award, if you are an individual recipient, you must agree that— ( a ) You will not engage in the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance in conducting any activity related to the award; and
( b ) If you are convicted of a criminal drug offense resulting from a violation occurring during the conduct of any award activity, you will report the conviction: ( 1 ) In writing.
( 2 ) Within 10 calendar days of the conviction.
( 3 ) To the Federal agency awarding official or other designee for each award that you currently have, unless the agency designates a central point for the receipt of the notices, either in the award document or its regulation implementing the guidance in this part. When notice is made to a central point, it must include the identification number(s) of each affected award.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 1621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-363]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. [thinsp]225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than January 27, 2010.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. John E. Helgerson, Ottumwa, Iowa; to acquire additional shares 
of Hedrick Bancorp, Inc., Hedrick, Iowa, and thereby indirectly acquire 
additional voting shares of Hedrick Savings Bank, Ottumwa, Iowa.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 7, 
2010.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-363 Filed 1-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                   EXHIBIT 11

                           COMMODORE HOLDINGS LIMITED
                COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK

                                                                Year Ended      Period Ended
                                                               September 30,    September 30,
Computation for Statement of Operations                              1996           1995
---------------------------------------                        -------------    ----------
<S>                                                            <C>              <C>
Primary earnings per share
    Net earnings                                               $   1,729,482    $    251,535

Reduction of interest expense for presumed
  repayment of debt (as determined by the application
  of the modified treasury stock method)                             124,279              -
                                                               -------------    -----------

Adjusted net earnings                                          $   1,853,761    $    251,535
                                                               =============    ============

Shares

    Weighted average number of common shares
      outstanding                                                  5,055,977       4,124,815

Add:  Dilutive effect to warrants (as determined
  by the application of the modified treasury stock method)          383,611         252,778
                                                               -------------    ------------

Weighted average common and common equivalent
  shares                                                           5,439,588       4,377,593
                                                               =============    ============

Earnings (loss) per common and common equivalent
  shares                                                       $        0.34    $       0.06
                                                               =============    ============

Fully diluted earnings (loss) per share
    Net earnings (loss) as per primary calculation
      above                                                    $        0.34    $       0.06
                                                               =============    ============
</TABLE>
# L_2020258EN.01005101.xml

| 7.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 258/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 258/51

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1566 of 18 October 2018 concerning the authorisation of the preparation of endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase and endo-1,4-beta-xylanase produced by Aspergillus niger (NRRL 25541) and alpha-amylase produced by Aspergillus niger (ATCC66222) as a feed additive for weaned piglets and minor porcine species (weaned) and amending Regulation (EC) No 1453/2004 (holder of authorisation Andrès Pintaluba S.A.)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 262 of 19 October 2018
  )

In the title, in the text and in Annex:

for:

‘
  Aspergillus niger (ATCC66222)’,

read:

‘
  Aspergillus orizae (ATCC66222)’,

---