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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7370 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7370

 To amend the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 to establish a deadline for 
         processing applications related to geothermal leasing.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 15, 2024

  Mr. Curtis introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 to establish a deadline for 
         processing applications related to geothermal leasing.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Geothermal Energy Opportunity Act'' 
or the ``GEO Act''.

SEC. 2. EFFECT OF PENDING CIVIL ACTIONS ON PROCESSING APPLICATIONS 
              RELATED TO GEOTHERMAL LEASING.

    Section 4 of the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1003) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(h) Effect of Pending Civil Actions on Processing Applications 
Related to Geothermal Leasing.--
            ``(1) Requirement to process applications.--Notwithstanding 
        the existence of any pending civil action that affects an 
        application for a geothermal drilling permit, sundry notice, 
        notice to proceed, right-of-way, or other authorization or 
        approval under a valid existing geothermal lease, the Secretary 
        shall, unless a United States Federal court vacated the 
        applicable geothermal lease, process each such application not 
        later than 30 days after completing all environmental documents 
        required under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental 
        Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) for the authorization 
        or approval.
            ``(2) No new authority for federal courts.--Nothing in this 
        subsection shall be construed as providing authority to a 
        Federal court to vacate a geothermal lease.''.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 176
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 176 appear at 61 FR 14482, Apr. 2, 1996; 66 FR 56035, Nov. 6, 2001; and 70 FR 72074, Dec. 1, 2005.

§ 176.230 3,5-Dimethyl-1,3,5,2*H*-tetrahydrothiadiazine-2-thione. 3,5-Dimethyl-1,3,5,2*H-*tetrahydrothi-adiazine-2-thione may safely be used as a preservative in the manufacture and coating of paper and paperboard intended for use in contact with food in accordance with the following prescribed conditions: ( a ) It is used as follows: ( 1 ) In the manufacture of paper and paperboard as a preservative for substances added to the pulp suspension prior to the sheet-forming operation provided that the preservative is volatilized by heat in the drying and finishing of the paper and paperboard.
( 2 ) As a preservative for coatings for paper and paperboard, *Provided,* That the preservative is volatilized by heat in the drying and finishing of the coated paper or paperboard.
( b ) The quantity used shall not exceed the least amount reasonably required to accomplish the intended technical effect and shall not be intended to nor, in fact, accomplish any physical or technical effect in the food itself.
( c ) The use of a preservative in any substance or article subject to any regulation in parts 174, 175, 176, 177, 178 and § 179.45 of this chapter must comply with any specifications and limitations prescribed by such regulation for the substance or article.
##### 



Exhibit 32 (a)
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or
(15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78(d)); and
 (2)
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Partnership.
 Date: 8-10-07
 /s/
    
    JOHN S. WHETZELL

John S. Whetzell
Chief Executive Officer
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Northland Cable Properties Seven Limited Partnership and will be retained by Northland Cable
Properties Seven Limited Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
Exhibit 13.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of
Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Deutsche Telekom AG (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The
Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2005, of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

|Dated: March 14, 2006 |  | Kai-Uwe Ricke
Chairman of the Management Board                                       
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  |                                                                                      
|Dated: March 14, 2006 |  | Dr. Karl-Gerhard Eick
Deputy Chairman of the Management Board Finance and Controlling

---



QuickLinks
§ 524.957 Florfenicol, terbinafine, and mometasone otic solution. ( a ) *Specifications.* Each single-dose, prefilled dropperette contains 1 milliliter (mL) of a solution containing 16.6 milligrams (mg) florfenicol, 14.8 mg terbinafine (equivalent to 16.6 mg terbinafine hydrochloride), and 2.2 mg mometasone furoate.
( b ) *Sponsor.* See Nos. 017030 and 058198 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.
( c ) *Conditions of use in dogs* — ( 1 ) *Amount.* Administer one dropperette (1 mL) per affected ear(s).
( 2 ) *Indications for use.* For the treatment of otitis externa in dogs associated with susceptible strains of yeast (*Malassezia pachydermatis*) and bacteria (*Staphylococcus pseudintermedius*).
( 3 ) *Limitations.* Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.
[80 FR 76387, Dec. 9, 2015, as amended at 83 FR 64740, Dec. 18, 2018; 86 FR 14821, Mar. 19, 2021; 88 FR 14901, Mar. 10, 2023]
#### § 520.390 Chloramphenicol oral dosage forms.
EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on
Form S-8 pertaining to the Elcotel, Inc. 1999 Stock Option Plan of our report
dated June 20, 2000 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes
an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company's ability to continue as a
going concern) appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Elcotel, Inc for
the year ended March 31, 2000.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Tampa, FL
July 7, 2000
* Pursuant to 5 THC IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 97-50576 Summary Calendar

_____________________ TYNA SPURLOCK, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus NOBLE THOMAS FAULK; CITY OF GROESBECK, Defendants-Appellees.

_______________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Western District of Texas

(W-96-CV-372)

_______________________________________________________ March 24, 1998 Before REAVLEY, KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The summary judgment for the City of Groesbeck is affirmed. There is no evidence that the City either formally approves or implicitly tolerates police conduct in arresting citizens without probable cause or abusing them in the course of investigatory detention. Nor is there evidence of deliberate indifference in officer training, or supervision, or the hiring of officer Faulk.1 See United States v. Sander , 994 F.2d 200 (5th Cir.

1993). 2 The summary judgment for the officer, Noble Thomas Faulk, is reversed. Whether the handcuffing was reasonably justified to detain Spurlock and complete the investigation, 1 she raised an issue of no reasonable ground to arrest for probable cause. We make no ruling on the state law claim but remand that to the district court with the case. Judgment for the City of Groesbeck is affirmed. Judgment for Noble Thomas Faulk is reversed, and the cause against him is remanded.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 22 (Thursday, February 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 5249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2272]

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

FEDERAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS EXAMINATION COUNCIL

[Docket No. AS12-02]

Appraisal Subcommittee Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions 
Examination Council.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

    Description: In accordance with Section 1104 (b) of Title XI of the 
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, 
as amended, notice is hereby given that the Appraisal Subcommittee 
(ASC) will meet in closed session:
    Location: OCC--250 E Street SW., Room 2C, Washington, DC 20219.
    Date: February 8, 2012.
    Time: Immediately following the ASC open session.
    Status: Closed.

Matters To Be Considered

    December 14, 2011 minutes--Closed Session;
    Preliminary discussion of State Compliance Reviews.

    Dated: January 27, 2012.
James R. Park,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2012-2272 Filed 2-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   5-MOS                   5-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1996             MAR-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996             AUG-31-1995
<CASH>                                       4,527,405               2,661,105
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,311,143               3,654,826
<ALLOWANCES>                                    47,488                  74,548
<INVENTORY>                                  5,528,080               5,999,212
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,791,144              12,552,703
<PP&E>                                       8,641,948               8,498,996
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,904,347               4,273,077
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,753,741              16,985,199
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,997,546               7,873,764
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         5,700                   5,700
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,395,988               7,611,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,753,741              16,985,199
<SALES>                                      6,210,200               6,491,617
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,210,200               6,491,617
<CGS>                                        5,289,229               5,372,798
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,289,229               5,372,798
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               850,817                 798,258
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             271,146                 252,841
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (200,992)                  67,720
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                  23,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (200,992)                  44,720
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (200,992)                  44,720
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.12)                     .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I,
Terrence J. Scully, certify that:

1.    I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of
periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of Target Receivables Corporation;

2.    Based
on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole, does 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 as of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3.    Based
on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for
inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;

4.    I
am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance
review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and

5.    The
reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report provided by an independent public
accountant, after conducting a review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar,
agreement, that is included in these reports.

|Dated:  March 22, 2004 |  | By  /s/ Terrence J. Scully
Terrence J. Scully,
Vice President and Director
|---------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------



QuickLinks
[Cite as State v. Pink , 2013-Ohio-3082.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2012-10-209

: D E C I S I O N - vs - 7/15/2013 : JAMES PINK, : Defendant-Appellant. :

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2011-08-1268

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Michael A. Oster, Jr., Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, OH 45011-6057, for plaintiff-appelleeBilly W. Guinigundo, 5331 South Gilmore Road, Fairfield, Ohio 45014, for defendantappellant

Per Curiam

. {¶ 1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel, oral argument having been waived.Butler CA2012-10-209

- 2 - {¶ 2} Counsel for defendant-appellant, James Pink, has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1) indicates that a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; (2) lists two potential errors "that might arguably support the appeal," Anders , at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to determine whether the proc eedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of appellant's constituti onal rights; (4) requests permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. {¶ 3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings in the tr ial court. The motion of counsel for appellant requesting to wit hdraw as counsel is grant ed, and this a ppeal is dismissed for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

HENDRICKSON, P.J., S. POWELL and RINGLAND, JJ., concur.
1

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3718

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Christopher W. Middaugh, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 7, 2005

Filed: September 22, 2005

___________

Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Middaugh appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed

following revocation of his probation. Middaugh originally pleaded guilty to

possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic

violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), and was sentenced in January 2003

to 5 years probation. In November 2004 the district court revoked Middaugh’s

probation and sentenced him to 15 months imprisonment and 2 years supervised

release, after Middaugh stipulated that he had violated the conditions of his probation.
-2-

On appeal, Middaugh argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to accept

his guilty plea to the underlying firearm offense (as to which he now denies guilt),

that the court should have granted his revocation-hearing request for reappointment

of counsel, and that defense counsel at both his underlying criminal proceedings and

the revocation proceedings were ineffective.

These arguments fail. Middaugh is foreclosed from attacking his firearm

conviction in this appeal, see United States v. Simmons, 812 F.2d 561, 563 (9th Cir.

1987) (appeal from probation revocation is not proper avenue for collateral attack on

underlying conviction); he waived the reappointment issue by explicitly accepting

his present counsel at the revocation hearing, see United States v. Tulk, 171 F.3d 596,

600 (8th Cir. 1999) (issue waived below is not reviewed, even for plain error); and

his ineffective-assistance claims are not properly before us, see United States v.

Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003) (claims of ineffective assistance of

counsel are generally deferred to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings unless miscarriage

of justice would obviously result, or outcome would be inconsistent with substantial

justice).

Accordingly, we affirm, and we also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________
August 3, 2016

In accordance with the enclosed Memorandum Opinion, below is the judgment in the numbered cause set out herein to be entered in the Minutes of this Court as of the 3rd day of August, 2016.

10-15-00140-CR	CESAR RANGEL v. THE STATE OF TEXAS - ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF NAVARRO COUNTY - TRIAL COURT NO. 32063-CR – AFFIRMED – Memorandum Opinion by Justice Scoggins:

	“This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record of the Court below, and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the judgment, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court that the judgment be in all things affirmed and that the appellant pay all costs in this behalf expended and that this decision be certified below for observance.”

# image1.png
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7607 

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

Block 1025, Lots 18 & 19, Northeast Corner of US Route 9 South 

and Main Street in the Township of Middle, County of Cape May, 

New Jersey, as the ‘‘George Henry White Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 8, 2024 

Mr. VAN DREW (for himself, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. KEAN of New 

Jersey, Mr. NORCROSS, Mr. KIM of New Jersey, Mr. GOTTHEIMER, Mr. 

PALLONE, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. PAYNE, Ms. SHERRILL, 

and Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN) 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 Block 1025, Lots 18 & 19, Northeast Corner 

of US Route 9 South and Main Street in the Township 

of Middle, County of Cape May, New Jersey, as the 

‘‘George Henry White 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. GEORGE HENRY WHITE POST OFFICE BUILD4 ING. 

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

6 Postal Service located at Block 1025, Lots 18 & 19, 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7607 IH

1 Northeast Corner of US Route 9 South and Main Street 

2 in the Township of Middle, County of Cape May, New Jer3 sey, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘George Henry 

4 White Post Office Building’’. 

5 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg6 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

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

8 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘George Henry White 

9 Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES**

 
| 1. Wholly owned  subsidiaries of First Mariner Bancorp |
|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                   | First Mariner  Bank |
|                                                   | FM Appraisals,  LLC |
|                                                   | Mariner Capital  Trust II |
|                                                   | Mariner Capital  Trust III |
|                                                   | Mariner Capital  Trust IV |
|                                                   | Mariner Capital  Trust V |
|                                                   | Mariner Capital  Trust VI |
|                                                   | Mariner Capital  Trust VII |
|                                                   | Mariner Capital  Trust VIII |
|                                                   | Finance  Maryland, LLC |
|                                                   | Canton Crossing  II, LLC |
|                                                   | Hale Canton, LLC |
|                                                   | Canton  Borrowing, LLC |
| 2. Wholly owned  subsidiaries of First Mariner Bank    |
|                                                   | First Mariner  Mortgage Corporation |
|                                                   | Compass Properties,  Inc. |
|                                                   | First Mariner  Financial Services, Inc. |
|                                                   | FMB Holdings,  Inc. |

 

----