alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029



### MAR 29 2011 Ms. Joyce E. Epps, Director Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Protection Bureau ofAir Quality Rachel Carson State Office Building P.O. Box 2063 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105-2063 Dear Ms. Epps: On June 3, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised the heathbased National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) by establishing a new 1-hour standard at a level of75 parts per billion (ppb). This new 1-hour standard will protect public health by reducing people’s exposure to high short-term (5-minutes to 24-hours) concentrations ofSO 2

. An area meets the new standard when the 3-year average ofthe 99 th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations does not exceed 75 ppb. Section l07(d)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA) describes the process EPA follows for designating areas as meeting or notmeeting a new orrevised NAAQS. Within one year of establishing a new orrevised standard, each governor must recommend a designation of attainment, nonattainment or unclassifiable, with appropriate boundaries, for areas within their jurisdiction. Therefore, we ask that your state provide designation recommendations, including appropriate areaboundaries, for all areas by June 3, 2011, with respect to the 1-hour SO 2 NAAQS. The enclosed memorandumprovides guidance to state and local airpollution control agencies and tribes on the timeline and process for designating areas under the revised SO 2 standard. We plan to announce our intended designations no laterthan 120 days prior to promulgating final designations. Following the announcement ofintended designations, states and tribes will have the opportunity to comment on any modifications EPA proposes to their recommendations. EPA intends to complete designations by no laterthan June 3, 2012.

Printed on 100% recycled/recyclablepaper with 100% post-colisunierfiber andprocess chlorinefree. Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474Establishing area designations is a key step in the process ofproviding the health protection intended by the CAA. Ifyou have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or have your staffcontactMs. Irene Shandruk at (215) 814-2166 orMs. Ruth Knapp at (215) 814-2191. Sincerely, 

## (A‘-cDianaEsher, Director Air Protection Division Enclosure

cc: Ms. Arleen Shulman, Chief Division ofAir Resource Management Bureau ofAir Quality, Pennsylvania Department ofEnvironmental Protection

Printedon 100% recycled/recyclablepaper with 100% post-consumerfiber andprocess chlorinefree. CustomerService Hotline: 1-800-438-2474
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 190 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 190

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
   provide that no person born in the United States will be a United 
  States citizen on account of birth in the United States unless both 
 parents are either United States citizens or aliens lawfully admitted 
           for permanent residence at the time of the birth.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 5, 1996

 Mr. Barr of Georgia introduced the following joint resolution; which 
             was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
   provide that no person born in the United States will be a United 
  States citizen on account of birth in the United States unless both 
 parents are either United States citizens or aliens lawfully admitted 
           for permanent residence at the time of the birth.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. No person born in the United States after the date of 
the ratification of this article shall be a citizen of the United 
States, or of any State, on account of birth in the United States 
unless the mother and father of the person are either citizens of the 
United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence at 
the time of the birth.
    ``Sec. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by 
appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 12, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40596-40597]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19300]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications also will be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. 
Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained 
from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 8, 2009.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Ivan Hurwitz, Bank 
Applications Officer) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001:
    1. Alcar, LLC, New York, New York; to become a bank holding company 
by acquiring at least 90 percent of the voting shares of Darien 
Rowayton Bank, Darien, Connecticut.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Steve Foley, Vice President) 
1000

[[Page 40597]]

Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309:
    1. USAAmeriBancorp, Inc., Largo, Florida; to acquire 83.3 percent 
of the outstanding shares of Aliant Financial Corporation, and its 
subsidiary, Aliant Bank, both of Alexander City, Alabama.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 7, 
2009.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. E9-19300 Filed 8-11-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
§ 0.105 Responsibilities of employees and supervisors. ( a ) Employees shall comply with all generally accepted rules of conduct, the specific provisions of this part, and other applicable regulations. An employee with questions about generally accepted rules of conduct, the specific provisions of this part, and other applicable regulations should consult his or her supervisor, a human resources specialist, or Bureau counsel.
( b ) Supervisors, because of their day-to-day relationships with their employees, are responsible for ensuring that their employees maintain high standards of conduct. Supervisors must be familiar with this part and other applicable regulations and must apply generally accepted rules of conduct, the standards in this part, and the standards in other applicable regulations to the work they do and supervise. Supervisors shall take appropriate action, including disciplinary action, when violations of this part or other applicable regulations occur.
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 Quarterly Report of HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10Q for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Norbert Sporns, Chief Executive 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, to
the best of his knowledge, 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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: August 3, 2007



/s/ Norbert SpornsNorbert SpornsChief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 13 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
H. J. RES. 13

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
  prohibit compelling the attendance of a student in a public school 
  other than the public school nearest the residence of such student.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

   Mr. Emerson introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
  prohibit compelling the attendance of a student in a public school 
  other than the public school nearest the residence of such student.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, to be valid only if 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of final passage of this resolution:

                              ``Article--

    ``Section 1. No student shall be compelled to attend a public 
school other than the public school nearest to the residence of each 
student which is located within the school district in which such 
student resides and which provides the course of study pursued by such 
student.
    ``Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have power 
to enforce this article by appropriate legislation and to insure equal 
educational opportunities for all students.''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 31.3401(a)-2 Exclusions from wages. ( a ) *In general.* ( 1 ) The term “wages” does not include any remuneration for services performed by an employee for his employer which is specifically excepted from wages under section 3401(a).
( 2 ) The exception attaches to the remuneration for services performed by an employee and not to the employee as an individual; that is, the exception applies only to the remuneration in an excepted category. Example. A is an individual who is employed part time by B to perform domestic service in his home (see § 31.3401(a)(3)-1). A is also employed by C part time to perform services as a clerk in a department store owned by him. While no withholding is required with respect to A's remuneration for services performed in the employ of B (the remuneration being excluded from wages), the exception does not embrace the remuneration for services performed by A in the employ of C and withholding is required with respect to the wages for such services.
( 3 ) For provisions relating to the circumstances under which remuneration which is excepted is nevertheless deemed to be wages, and relating to the circumstances under which remuneration which is not excepted is nevertheless deemed not to be wages, see § 31.3402(e)-1.
( 4 ) For provisions relating to payments with respect to which a voluntary withholding agreement is in effect, which are not defined as wages in section 3401(a) but which are nevertheless deemed to be wages, see §§ 31.3401(a)-3 and 31.3402(p)-1.
( b ) *Fees paid a public official.* ( 1 ) Authorized fees paid to public officials such as notaries public, clerks of courts, sheriffs, etc., for services rendered in the performance of their official duties are excepted from wages and hence are not subject to withholding. However, salaries paid such officials by the Government, or by a Government agency or instrumentality, are subject to withholding.
( 2 ) Amounts paid to precinct workers for services performed at election booths in State, county, and municipal elections and fees paid to jurors and witnesses are in the nature of fees paid to public officials and therefore are not subject to withholding.
[T.D. 6516, 25 FR 13032, Dec. 20, 1960, as amended by T.D. 6654, 28 FR 5251, May 28, 1963; T.D. 7096, 36 FR 5216, Mar. 18, 1971]
#### § 44.4401-3 When tax attaches.

The tax attaches when (a) a person engaged in the business of accepting wagers with respect to a sports event or a contest, or (b) a person who operates a wagering pool or lottery for profit, accepts a wager or contribution from a bettor. In the case of a wager on credit, the tax attaches whether or not the amount of the wager is actually collected from the bettor. However, if an amount equivalent to the amount of the wager is paid to the bettor prior to the close of the calendar month in which such wager was accepted, either because of the cancellation of the event upon which the wager was placed, or because the wager was cancelled or rescinded by mutual agreement, the wager need not be reported on the taxpayer's return for such month. Where such cancellation or rescission takes place in a month subsequent to the month in which the wager was accepted, credit or refund of the tax paid with respect to such wager may be made subject to the provisions of § 44.6419-1.
#### In the Matter of Mark Wellman, Appellant, v Robert Dennison, as Chair of the Board of Parole, Respondent.

[805 NYS2d 159]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lament, J.), entered May 3, 2005 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Petitioner is serving an aggregate sentence of 15 years to life following his conviction of eight counts of rape in the first degree and eight counts of sexual abuse in the first degree. Following his second appearance before the Board of Parole and after exhausting his administrative remedies, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the Board’s denial *975of his request for parole release and 24-month hold until his next parole hearing. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and we affirm.

We are unpersuaded by petitioner’s contention that the Board based its determination solely on the instant offense without proper consideration of other statutory factors. A review of the parole interview transcript and parole determination establishes that the Board considered petitioner’s positive educational programming and educational achievements, lack of disciplinary reports and plans upon release. Nevertheless, parole should not be granted simply as a reward for good behavior *(see*Executive Law § 259-i [2] [c] [A]). Furthermore, although the Board placed particular emphasis on the “deviant and hideous” nature of the offense which involved petitioner and multiple others victimizing a six-year-old child, the nature and severity of the crime is an appropriate factor to consider and there is no requirement that respondent discuss or give equal weight to every factor it considered in reaching its determination *(see Matter of Sanchez v Dennison,*21 AD3d 1249 [2005]; *Matter of Freeman v New York State Div. of Parole,*21 AD3d 1174 [2005]; *Matter of Motti v Travis,*19 AD3d 763 [2005]). Inasmuch as the record reflects that respondent’s determination was made in accordance with the statutory requirements and is not the product of “ ‘irrationality bordering on impropriety,’ ” further judicial review is precluded *(Matter of Silmon v Travis,*95 NY2d 470, 476 [2000] [2005], quoting *Matter of Russo v New York State Bd. of Parole,*50 NY2d 69, 77 [1980]; *see*Executive Law § 259-i [2] [c] [A]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including that the determination was the result of a political policy, have been reviewed and found to be without merit.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Carpinello, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
H. Con. Res. 216 Agreed to September 27, 1996

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

Concurrent Resolution

Providing for relocation of the Portrait Monument.

Whereas in 1995, women of America celebrated the 75th anniversary of their right to participate in our government through

suffrage;

Whereas Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B.

Anthony were pioneers in the movement for women’s suffrage

and the pursuit of equal rights; and

Whereas the relocation of the Portrait Monument to a place of

prominence and esteem would serve to honor and revere the

contribution of thousands of women: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Architect of the Capitol shall—

(1) restore the Portrait Monument and place it in the

Rotunda of the Capitol for one year at which time it shall

be moved to a permanent site along with an appropriate educational display, as determined by the commission created in

section 3, and an alternative statue recommended by the

commission shall be placed in the Rotunda;

(2) make all necessary arrangements for a rededication

ceremoney of the Portrait Monument in the Rotunda in conjunction with the Woman Suffrage Statue Campaign; and

(3) use no Federal funds to pay any expense of restoring

or moving the statue.

SEC. 2. The Rotunda of the Capitol is authorized to be used

at a time mutually agreed upon by the Majority Leader of the

Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives for a

ceremony to commemorate and celebrate the statue’s return to

the Rotunda.

SEC. 3. A commission of 11 interested parties, including

Senators and Representatives, will be appointed. The Majority

Leader of the Senate will appoint three members and the Minority

Leader of the Senate will appoint two members to the commission.

The Speaker of the House of Representatives will appoint one

member, the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives will

appoint two members, the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives will appoint two members, and the Architect of the

Capitol will serve as the eleventh member of the commission. Immediately following the relocation of the Portrait Monument, the

commission shall—

(1) select a permanent site for the Portrait Monument;

(2) plan and develop an educational display to be located

near the statue at its permanent site, describing some of the

most dramatic events of the suffragettes’ lives;
H. Con. Res. 216—2

(3) select an alternative statue for permanent placement

in the Rotunda of the Capitol to commemorate the struggle

of women in America for equal rights;

(4) provide its recommendation to the Senate and the House

of Representatives no later than one year after the relocation

of the Portrait Monument; and

(5) use no Federal funds to pay any expense of the

educational display and/or relocation of the Portrait Monument.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 177 Introduced in House (IH)]

  2d Session
H. J. RES. 177

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
   authorizing the Congress and the States to prohibit the physical 
             desecration of the flag of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 30, 1996

    Mr. McDade introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
   authorizing the Congress and the States to prohibit the physical 
             desecration of the flag of the United States.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``The Congress and the States shall have power to prohibit the 
physical desecration of the flag of the United States.''.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-40069

Summary Calendar

 

NITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GONZALO SOSA-MORALES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-98-CR-513-1

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

February 1, 2000

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gonzalo

Sosa-Morales has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a

brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Sosa-Morales has filed a response, arguing that the district

court erred by imposing a 16-level enhancement pursuant to

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A) based on a prior Texas conviction for

theft. 
No. 99-40069

-2-

Our independent review of the brief, the record, and SosaMorales’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue in this direct

appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.