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

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7417 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

135 West Spring Street in Titusville, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Edwin L. 

Drake Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 20, 2024 

Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. FITZPATRICK, Mr. MEUSER, Mr. 

RESCHENTHALER, Mr. SMUCKER, Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania, Mr. CARTWRIGHT, Ms. DEAN of Pennsylvania, Ms. HOULAHAN, Mr. DELUZIO, Mr. 

BOYLE of Pennsylvania, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. PERRY, 

Ms. SCANLON, and Ms. WILD) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 135 West Spring Street in Titusville, Pennsylvania, as the ‘‘Edwin L. Drake Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EDWIN L. DRAKE POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 135 West Spring Street in 

6 Titusville, Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated 

7 as the ‘‘Edwin L. Drake Post Office Building’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7417 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Edwin L. Drake Post 

5 Office Building’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6165** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JOSHUA JIMENEZ , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. Catherine C. Blake , District Judge. ( 1:10

- cr - 00633

- CCB

- 1 ; 1:13

- cv - 01610

- CCB )

Submitted : May 22, 2014 Decided: May 29, 2014

Before TRAXLER , Chief Judge , and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Joshua Jimenez , Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin M. Block , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Joshua Jimenez s eeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012) . 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) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable j urists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutio nal right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jimenez has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument be cause the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier: 2012** 

**- NM** 
**- 101** 

**- AD** 

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
Order of March 26, 2014, Withdrawn and Order filed April 1, 2014

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 01020

- CR

___________ REGINALD BROUSSARD , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 351st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1354834



### ORDER

On March 26, 2014 , this Court issued an order abating the appeal and directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the failure to file a brief. On March 27, 2014, appellant filed a motion to extend time to file his brief and his brief. The motion is granted. Our order of March 26 , 201 4 , is withdrawn. The appeal is reinstated. The State’s brief is due 30 days from the date of this order.

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 Front Range Capital Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending March 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Alice M. Bier, 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 result of operations of the
Company.

                                                     /s/ Alice M. Bier
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Alice M. Bier
                                                     Chief Financial Officer

May 13, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Front Range Capital Corporation and will be retained by Front Range
Capital Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1315

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part appear at 82 FR 97041, Dec. 30, 2016.

#### § 1315.62 Final order.

As soon as practicable after the presiding officer has certified the record to the Administrator, the Administrator shall issue his order on the determination or adjustment of the assessment of annual needs or on the issuance, adjustment, suspension, or denial of the procurement, import, or individual manufacturing quota, as the case may be. The order shall include the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the order is based. The order shall specify the date on which it shall take effect. The Administrator shall serve one copy of his order upon each party in the hearing.
O 

N 

Q' O 

U N 

_ 

(D O 

C 

O 

` N 

(II 

O 

p] O O O ~ CO 

V O 4) 

U ~ N "' 

N co 

(p 

t 

" C 

O 

C 

p (n N 

O ~ N 

a 

CO O 0 0 ~- 0 u 

C .) 

~ 

O 

( rJ N_ a ~ N 00 N Of -a 00 

O 

cD cu 

C 0 a) U _ N 

m O 0 0 e- N . Z ~ U " d. O U 

CO C/) _ ~O 

_ 

O 

U 

N N (9 

C . N 7 

'O 

(O ~ d U 

0. C 

O U 

x 

N 'U) 

Q U O 

N 

. 

U N = ~j >, 

[p O 0 0 r CiN - 

U . 

O 

Q r v 

C 

> . w c 

C`~ W 

cc 

U d O C ~ 

co 

N 

O N 'o ~ ~ O 

O O c0 

n~ 

~, 

.2 O (n (D 

~t o) 

o 

75 

c 

c_ 

y 

2 

~ 

U ~ (0 

m O O O r- '~P a E 

~ O 

' 

~ n 

O 

0 

Q. N Q II ~ U '

~ 

p7 

U c0 Q 

LL 

J 

p~ 

y 

N 

(D 

a 4) 

lO 

N 

c~o °- ~ E `~ ~ 'm 

m 

Con 

0 °= 

~o -- 

0Q 

~- 

F= c> V 

E F- w ~- o 

0 

fC N 

rn 

+_r 

C 

J 

p> 

7 7 

d 

Q 

Q al 

N 

X O 

O 

p7 N 

7 

N 

_yl O 

7 

N 

N 

(0 

O 

N 

O 

O 

Y 

3 U 

O 

O 

O) 

N 

!Z 

m 

0 

n 

co o 

m 

U 

N 

N 

O 

C 

O 

Z 

I I 

0 

Z 

O 

C 

N 

V
#### § 573.740 Odorless light petroleum hydrocarbons.

Odorless light petroleum hydrocarbons complying with § 172.884(a) and (b) of this chapter may be safely used in an amount not in excess of that required as a component of insecticide formulations used in compliance with regulations issued in this part.
[Nos. 15211-1-III; 15641-9-III.

Division Three.

November 18, 1997.]

#### Paul E. Valentine, et al., *Appellants,*v. Mark W. Valentine, et al., *Respondents,*Deep Wells Ranch, Inc., *Appellant.*

Appeals from judgments of the Superior Court for Grant County, No. 93-2-00863-1, Kenneth L. Jorgensen, J., entered September 8, 1995 and February 23, 1996. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Sweeney, C.J., concurred in by Brown, J., and Thompson, J. Pro Tern.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CYBEX COMPUTER PRODUCTS CORPORATION FOR THE THREE MONTHS
ENDED JUN-30-1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<CIK> 0000946360
<NAME> CYBEX COMPUTER PRODUCTS CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           9,237
<SECURITIES>                                    27,251
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,554
<ALLOWANCES>                                       341
<INVENTORY>                                      4,470
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,372
<PP&E>                                           3,583
<DEPRECIATION>                                     988
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,511
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,623
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             9
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,042
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,511
<SALES>                                         10,695
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,695
<CGS>                                            5,049
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,049
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   104
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   6
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,644
<INCOME-TAX>                                       942
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,702
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.21
<FN>
WE HAVE CALCULATED EARNINGS PER SHARE AMOUNTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH FAS 128
"EARNINGS PER SHARE." WE HAVE ENTERED BASIC AND DILUTED AMOUNTS IN PLACE OF
PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED, RESPECTIVELY, AND REFLECT THE THREE-FOR-TWO STOCK
DIVIDEND EFFECTIVE APRIL 10, 1998.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
[No. 39514-9-I.

Division One.

November 10, 1997.]

#### King County, *Respondent,*v. James Parmly, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 96-2-08843-9, Harriett M. Cody, J., entered September 13 and 30, 1996. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Kennedy, A.C.J., concurred in by Agid and Cox, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Amerityre Corporation (the "Company") for the year ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard A. Steinke, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:  (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/Richard A. Steinke
Richard A. Steinke
Chief Executive Officer
September 12, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 74 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 74

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to propose, establish, implement, 
or enforce any requirement that an individual wear a mask or other face 
covering, or be vaccinated, to prevent the spread of COVID-19, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2023

  Mr. Biggs introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit the use of Federal funds to propose, establish, implement, 
or enforce any requirement that an individual wear a mask or other face 
covering, or be vaccinated, to prevent the spread of COVID-19, 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. PROHIBITION ON REQUIREMENTS TO WEAR FACE COVERINGS OR BE 
              VACCINATED.

    (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), no Federal funds may be 
obligated or expended to propose, establish, implement, or enforce, 
directly or indirectly through the imposition of a condition on receipt 
of Federal funds, any requirement that an individual wear a mask or 
other face covering, or be vaccinated, to prevent the spread of COVID-
19.
    (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to an 
individual in a health care setting.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 76660]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30054]

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

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

Arts Advisory Panel Meeting

AGENCY: National Endowment for the Arts, National Foundation on the 
Arts and Humanities.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Public Law 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that six 
meetings of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts 
will be held at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20506 (unless otherwise noted) as follows (all meetings 
are Eastern time and ending times are approximate):
    Folk & Traditional Arts (application review): This meeting will be 
closed.
    Dates: January 9, 2014. 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. in room 716.
    Music (review of nominations): This meeting will be closed.
    Dates: January 14, 2014. 10:00 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. The meeting will 
be held at Jazz at Lincoln Center, Ella & Louis Room, 3 Columbus 
Circle, 12th Floor, New York, NY 10019.
    Music (application review): This meeting will be virtual and will 
be closed.
    Dates: January 14, 2014. 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
    State & Regional (review of State Partnership Agreements): This 
meeting will be open.
    Dates: January 15-16, 2014. From 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on January 
15th and from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on January 16th, in Room 716.
    State & Regional (review of Regional Partnership Agreements): This 
meeting will be open.
    Dates: January 23, 2014. 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Research (application review): This meeting will be virtual and 
will be closed.
    Dates: January 29, 2014. 3:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Further information with reference to 
these meetings can be obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of 
Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, 
Washington, DC 20506; plowitzk@arts.gov, or call 202/682-5691.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The closed portions of meetings are for the 
purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on 
financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the 
Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in 
confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the 
Chairman of February 15, 2012, these sessions will be closed to the 
public pursuant to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United 
States Code.

    Dated: December 13, 2013.
Kathy Plowitz-Worden,
Panel Coordinator, National Endowment for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 2013-30054 Filed 12-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
```
#### § 579.22 Ionizing radiation for treatment of animal diets.

Ionizing radiation for treatment of complete diets for animals may be safely used under the following conditions:

(a) *Energy sources.* Ionizing radiation is limited to:

(1) Gamma rays for sealed units of the radionuclides cobalt-60 or cesium-137.

(2) Electrons generated from machine sources at energy levels not to exceed 10 million electron volts.

(b) *Uses.*

(1) The ionizing radiation is used or intended for use in single treatment as follows:

| Food for irradiation | Limitations | Use |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Bagged complete diets, packaged feeds, feed ingredients, bulk feeds, animal treats and chews | Absorbed dose: Not to exceed 50 kiloGrays. Feeds and feed ingredients treated by irradiation should be formulated to account for nutritional loss | Microbial disinfection, control or elimination |

(2) If an irradiated feed ingredient is less than 5 percent of the final product, the final product can be irradiated without being considered to be re-irradiated.

[51 FR 5993, Feb. 19, 1986; 51 FR 8315, Mar. 11, 1986, as amended at 58 FR 18148, Apr. 8, 1993; 66 FR 18540, Apr. 10, 2001]
###### Editorial Note on Part 312

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 312 appear at 69 FR 13717, Mar. 24, 2004.

#### § 312.69 Handling of controlled substances.

If the investigational drug is subject to the Controlled Substances Act, the investigator shall take adequate precautions, including storage of the investigational drug in a securely locked, substantially constructed cabinet, or other securely locked, substantially constructed enclosure, access to which is limited, to prevent theft or diversion of the substance into illegal channels of distribution.
# Table 3
From: Richard Parker [mailto:richardparkerdc@gmail.com]

Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 9:19 PM

To: Caskey, John

Cc: Brian Coffey; Alex Hofmann; Andrew Delaski; Aris Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Saint; Bruce Smith;

Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Gaytan; Charlie Drexler; Charlie Stevens; Chris Bolduc; Silcox, Clark; Creevy, Jim;

Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; Eric Peterson; Freeman, Jeremiah; Gary Fernstrom; Greg Coulter; Greg

Rosenquist; Hirsch, Bruce R; Ja mes Lass; Jen n ifer Tiedeman; Jerry Corkran; Jerry Hodge; Jerry Schoen;

Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; John Rossetti; Katie Coughlin; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Matt

Miller; Matthew Nardotti; Meg Waltner; Meyers, Aaron; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Millure, Dave;

Phil Harter; Phil Hopkinson; Polinski, Ray m ond; Pues h Kumar; Rick Anderson; Rob Greeson; Robert

Berman; Robert van Buskirk; Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul; Scott Beck; Simmons, Chuck; Steve Nadel; Steve

Rosenstock; Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo

Subject: Re: NEMA transformer section comments regarding DOE negotiated rulemaking process and

analysis for distribution transformers

John,

Thanks for th ese hel p ful comments. I will be working with Navigant and LBL staff intensively, over the

next couple of days, to assess how best to take these comments on board.

All best,

Richard

On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Caskey, John < Joh_Caskey@nema.org > wrote:

TO: Richard Parker, Brian Coffey, MVDT/LF Committee, LVDT Committee, NEMA Members, DOE

The attached comments are offered to the DOE, Navigant, LBL and the Committee members concerning

the negotiated rulemaking process for distribution transformer energy efficiency standards.

The basic points presented in the comments are:

1. We need to make sure that the ana lysis results provided by Navigant and LBL are validated against

know data from the manufacturers and users at EACH step of the analysis.

2. Any efficiency levels supported by the committees must provide for the opportunity for multiple

designs, materials and suppliers to meet those levels cost effectiv ely.3. Detailed technical analysis questions and comments were provided to the facilitator and

consultant directly from the manufacturers.

4. The consultants need to perform sensitivity analyses to better understand what variables are

driving the results of the analysis.

5. The efficiency levels selected by the committees should not disadvantage the small and medium

‐

sized transformer manufacturers.

More detailed comments and recommendations are provided in the attached document.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Please let me know if you have any

questions.

Best regards,

John

John F. Caskey, CEM

Assistant Vice President, Industry Operations

National Electrical Manufacturers Assoc. (NEMA)

1300 North 17 t h Street

‐ Suite 1752

Rosslyn, VA 22209

john.caskey@nema.org

703

‐ 841

‐ 3233 Voice

703

‐ 841

‐ 3333 FAX

703

‐ 350

‐ 6886 CellRegister now at http://www.nema.org/illuminations for NEMA's 85th annual meeting, Illuminations

Weekend, held October 28 and 29 at The Mayflower Renaissance Hotel in Washington, D.C.