alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

November 10, 1995.

Resolved, That the House agree to the amendments of

the Senate numbered 1 and 2 to the joint resolution (H.J.

Res. 115) entitled ‘‘Joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, and for other

purposes.’’.

Resolved, That the House agree to the amendment of the

Senate numbered 3 to the aforesaid joint resolution with the

following

AMENDMENT:

Delete the matter proposed by said amendment, and beginning on page 15, line 1 of the House engrossed joint resolution (H.J. Res. 115), strike all down to and including line

7, on page 36, and redesignate title IV as title III, and renumber sections accordingly.

Attest:

Clerk.
104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H.J. Res 115

AMENDMENT

TO

SENATE AMENDMENT
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 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 Telex Communications, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Ned C.
Jackson, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Gregory W. Richter, as
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his
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 as of September 30, 2002 (the last date of the period
            covered by the Report).



/s/ Ned C. Jackson
-------------------
Ned C. Jackson
Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2002


/s/ Gregory W. Richter
----------------------
Gregory W. Richter
Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2002
Exhibit
32.1



CERTIFICATION

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

(18
U.S.C. 1350)



Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned officers of Frankly Inc. (the “Company”),
do hereby certify, to the best of such officer’s knowledge and belief, that:



(1)
The Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2017 (the “Form 10-K/A”) of the Company 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 Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.



|Date:
    April 30, 2018 | /s/
    Lou Schwartz                                        
|------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------
|                         | Lou
        Schwartz
        Chief
        Executive Officer



|Date:
    April 30, 2018 | /s/
    Michael Munoz                                        
|------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------
|                         | Michael
        Munoz
        Chief
        Financial Officer



This
certification shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, or otherwise
subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act or the Securities Exchange Act.
Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Meeting Documentation: Applied Materials (AMAT)Date Staff Contact 

Information 

Name of Organization Summary of Discussion Written 

Comments Provided? Did they alssubmit to Do

06/01/10 Shep Burton 

sburton@icfi.com

415 902 5504 

Shep Burton sburton@icfi.com

415 902 5504 Applied Material (AMAT), Santa Clara, CA Phil Chandler, Phil_Chandler@amat.com

Dan Clark, Daniel_Clark@amat.com

Mehran Moalem , Mehran_Moalem@amat.com

Discussed NF3 RPS emissions factors published in 

EPA’s Notice of Data Availability (NODA). Attention given to the breadth of emission factors (EFs) presented in NODA as evidenced by an unexpectedly large coefficient variation for the values received and tabulated and whether EFs for 200 mm and 300 mm wafer technology should differ on average. Discussed potential that EF data set might include outliers and, if so, what might explain them. AMAT participants believed EFs >0.1 were likely outliers, which may have been measured incorrectly or measured correctly but were unrepresentative of currently installed RPS technology (either because the technology was not in use or system was poorly maintained). Among the reasons AMAT representatives expected a smaller coefficient of variation (COV) for in-use NF3 RPS 

technology was the similarity in commercially available and installed technologies for both 200 mm and 300 mm wafer technologies. Even though flow rates for 300 mm technology exceeds corresponding flow rates for 200 mm technology, the RF power to sustain the plasma is increased in the 300 mm systems to achieve the same NF3

destruction efficiency. AMAT is the market leader is NF3 RPS technology. AMAT did not believe that, on 

average, EFs for 200 mm and 300 mm should differ or that the COV of EFs for each wafer technology should differ.

 AMAT submitted comments docket.
IA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 18

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with

respect to the right to life.

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 with respect to the right to life.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid only

6 if ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

7 States within seven years after the date of final passage

8 of this joint resolution.
2

HJ 18 IH

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. With respect to the right to life, the

3 word ‘person’ as used in this article and in the fifth and

4 fourteenth articles of amendment to the Constitution of

5 the United States applies to all human beings irrespective

6 of age, health, function, or condition of dependency, in7 cluding their unborn offspring at every state of their bio8 logical development.

9 ‘‘SECTION 2. No unborn person shall be deprived of

10 life by any person: Provided, however, That nothing in this

11 article shall prohibit a law permitting only those medical

12 procedures required to prevent the death of the mother.

13 ‘‘SECTION 3. The Congress and the several States

14 shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate leg15 islation.’’.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Jiggetts, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 596]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bangs County (Marras, J.), rendered May 21, 2002, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court improperly failed to charge the jury regarding flight is unpreserved for appellate review because the defendant neither requested such a charge nor objected to the court’s failure to so charge *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Burks,*272 AD2d 476, 477 [2000]; *cf. Up-Front Indus., v U.S. Indus.,*63 NY2d 1004 [1984]). In any event, any error in failing to charge the jury regarding flight was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt *(see People v Gilmore,*66 NY2d 863, 867 [1985]; *People v Hinckson,*266 AD2d 404, 405 [1999]; *People v Rodriguez,*135 AD2d 586, 587 [1987]).

To the extent that the defendant complains that the prosecutor unduly emphasized his flight during summation, the defendant failed to object to these comments at trial and, thus, failed to preserve the issue for appellate review *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Tardbania,*72 NY2d 852 [1988]; *People v Hinckson, supra*at 405). In any event, “the prosecutor’s remarks were either fair comment on the evidence and the legitimate inferences to be drawn therefrom, or fair response to the defense counsel’s summation” *(id.).*Adams, J.P., Luciano, Mastro and Lunn, JJ., concur.
IV

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 61

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding certain recent remarks that

unfairly and inaccurately maligned the integrity of the Nation’s law

enforcement officers.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 7, 1995

Mr. HYDE (for himself, Mr. MCCOLLUM, and Mr. SCHUMER) submitted the

following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on

the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding certain recent

remarks that unfairly and inaccurately maligned the integrity of the Nation’s law enforcement officers.

Whereas police today are in more danger and face greater

risks than ever before, with thousands being assaulted

and hundreds being killed or injured each year;

Whereas attacks on the Nation’s law enforcement officers directly endanger the safety and well-being of all American

citizens by incapacitating and wounding those who protect all of us;

Whereas America’s law enforcement officers are increasingly

being confronted not only with physical attacks, but with

malicious, mean-spirited, and misleading character assas-
2

•HCON 61 IH

sinations that unnecessarily malign the overwhelming majority of honest and ethical law enforcement officers while

at the same time undermining public confidence in our

country’s duly established system of criminal justice; and

Whereas persons who hold positions of special social responsibility, such as attorneys, officers of the courts, and instructors of our youth, by virtue of their position bear a

heightened responsibility not to mislead the public, and

especially not to mislead the public at the expense of

those upon whom we all rely for protection: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that—

3 (1) this Nation owes a debt of the greatest

4 magnitude to the men and women who daily serve

5 the people of America as law enforcement officers;

6 (2) the integrity, honesty, dedication, and sac7 rifice of this Nation’s law enforcement officers con8 stitute the very bedrock of the rule of law, which dis9 tinguishes a free society from a state of tyranny;

10 and

11 (3) America’s police deserve the thanks and

12 support of the people of the United States, which

13 are hereby tendered by their elected Senators and

14 Representatives.

Æ
www.gpo.gov

### §1300g–4. Provisions relating to tribal reservation

#### (a) Federal reservation established

The reservation is hereby declared to be a Federal Indian reservation for the use and benefit of the tribe without regard to whether legal title to such lands is held in trust by the Secretary.

#### (b) Conveyance of land by State

The Secretary shall—

(1) accept any offer from the State to convey title to any land within the reservation held in trust on August 18, 1987, by the State or by the Texas Indian Commission for the benefit of the tribe to the Secretary, and

(2) hold such title, upon conveyance by the State, in trust for the benefit of the tribe.

#### (c) Conveyance of land by tribe

At the written request of the Tribal Council, the Secretary shall—

(1) accept conveyance by the tribe of title to any land within the reservation held by the tribe on August 18, 1987, to the Secretary, and

(2) hold such title, upon such conveyance by the tribe, in trust for the benefit of the tribe.

#### (d) Approval of deed by Attorney General

Notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation, the Attorney General of the United States shall approve any deed or other instrument which conveys title to land within El Paso or Hudspeth Counties, Texas, to the United States to be held in trust by the Secretary for the benefit of the tribe.

#### (e) Permanent improvements authorized

Notwithstanding any other provision of law or rule of law, the Secretary or the tribe may erect permanent improvements, improvements of substantial value, or any other improvement authorized by law on the reservation without regard to whether legal title to such lands has been conveyed to the Secretary by the State or the tribe.

#### (f) Civil and criminal jurisdiction within reservation

The State shall exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction within the boundaries of the reservation as if such State had assumed such jurisdiction with the consent of the tribe under sections 1321 and 1322 of this title.

#### (g) Acquisition of land by tribe after August 18, 1987

(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Tribal Council may, on behalf of the tribe—

(A) acquire land located within El Paso County, or Hudspeth County, Texas, after August 18, 1987, and take title to such land in fee simple, and

(B) lease, sell, or otherwise dispose of such land in the same manner in which a private person may do so under the laws of the State.

(2) At the written request of the Tribal Council, the Secretary may—

(A) accept conveyance to the Secretary by the Tribal Council (on behalf of the tribe) of title to any land located within El Paso County, or Hudspeth County, Texas, that is acquired by the Tribal Council in fee simple after August 18, 1987, and

(B) hold such title, upon such conveyance by the Tribal Council, in trust for the benefit of the tribe.

(Pub. L. 100–89, title I, §105, Aug. 18, 1987, 101 Stat. 667.)

#### Section Referred to in Other Sections

This section is referred to in sections 1300g, 1300g–6 of this title.
§ 31.6302(c)-3 Deposit rules for taxes under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act. ( a ) *Requirement* — ( 1 ) *In general.* Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, every person that, by reason of the provisions of section 6157, computes the tax imposed by section 3301 on a quarterly or other time period basis shall— ( i ) If the person is described in section (a)(1) of section 6157, deposit the amount of such tax by the last day of the first calendar month following the close of each of the first three calendar quarters in the calendar year; or
( ii ) If the person is other than a person described in section (a)(1) of section 6157, deposit the amount of such tax by the last day of the first calendar month following the close of— ( a ) The period beginning with the first day of the calendar year and ending with the last day of the calendar quarter (excluding the last calendar quarter) in which such person becomes an employer (as defined in section 3306(a)), and
( b ) The third calendar quarter of such year, if the period specified in (*a*) of this subdivision includes only the first two calendar quarters of the calendar year.
( 2 ) *Special rule where accumulated amount does not exceed $500.* The provisions of paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall not apply with respect to any period described therein if the amount of the tax imposed by section 3301 for such period (as computed under section 6157) plus amounts not deposited for prior periods does not exceed $500 ($100 in the case of periods ending on or before December 31, 2004). Thus, an employer shall not be required to make a deposit for a period unless his tax for such period plus tax not deposited for prior periods exceeds $500.
( b ) *Manner of deposit* — ( 1 ) *In general.* A deposit required to be made by an employer under this section shall be made separately from a deposit required by any other section. An employer may make one, or more than one, remittance of the amount required to be deposited. An employer that is not required to deposit an amount of tax by this section may nevertheless voluntarily make that deposit. For the requirement to deposit tax under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act by electronic funds transfer, see § 31.6302-1(h).
( 2 ) *Time deemed paid.* For the time an amount deposited by electronic funds transfer is deemed paid, see § 31.6302-1(h)(9). For the time an amount remitted with a return is deemed paid, see § 31.6302-1(i)(3).
( c ) *Effective/applicability date.* This section applies to deposits and payments made after December 31, 2010.
[T.D. 7037, 35 FR 6709, Apr. 28, 1970; 35 FR 7070, May 5, 1970, as amended by T.D. 7062, 35 FR 14840, Sept. 24, 1970; T.D. 7953, 49 FR 19645, May 9, 1984; 49 FR 25239, June 20, 1984; T.D. 8723, 62 FR 37494, July 14, 1997; T.D. 8952, 66 FR 33831, 33832, June 26, 2001; T.D. 9162, 69 FR 69820, Dec. 1, 2004; T.D. 9239, 71 FR 13, Jan. 3, 2006; T.D. 9507, 75 FR 75903, Dec. 7, 2010]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          10,872
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  335,538
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     41,261
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               390,167
<PP&E>                                       1,031,997
<DEPRECIATION>                               (285,119)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,187,731
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          370,915
<BONDS>                                        155,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              416
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,255
<OTHER-SE>                                     361,417
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,187,731
<SALES>                                      1,208,989
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,213,664
<CGS>                                        1,077,870
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,077,870
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                82,382
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,027
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,385
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,645
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             23,586
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,586
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .56


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Alexander Soto, Appellant.

[806 NYS2d 612]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Erlbaum, J.), rendered August 30, 2000, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to, sua sponte, order a fourth competency examination *(see*CPL 730.30 [1]; *People v Tortorici,*92 NY2d 757 [1999], *cert denied*528 US 834 [1999]; *People v Eherts,*21 AD3d 905 [2005]; *People v Morgan,*87 NY2d 878 [1995]). The court was entitled to give weight to the findings and conclusions of the defendant’s most recent competency examination, which found him fit to proceed, and to its own observations of the defendant *(see People v Morgan, supra*at 880-881; *People v Russell,*74 NY2d 901, 902 [1989]; *People v Torres,*12 AD3d 539, 540 [2004]). The defendant conceded that he understood the charges against him and the functions of the court officers, and he presented his pro se defense in an orderly manner. The defendant’s refusal to pursue an insanity defense did not, in itself, render him incompetent *(see People v Reason,*37 NY2d 351, 352-353 [1975]; *People v Ferguson,*248 AD2d 725 [1998]). H. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Dillon, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1


                           GTECH HOLDINGS CORPORATION

                            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 GTECH Holdings Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending August 28, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the Date hereof (the "Report"), I, W.
Bruce Turner, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to sections 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.


                                    GTECH HOLDINGS CORPORATION


Date: October 6, 2004               By /s/ W. Bruce Turner
                                    ------------------------------
                                    W. Bruce Turner
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer
# L_2019140DE.01015304.xml

| 28.5.2019 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 140/153 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2019

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 140/153

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) 2019/124 des Rates vom 30. Januar 2019 zur Festsetzung der Fangmöglichkeiten für 2019 für bestimmte Fischbestände und Bestandsgruppen in den Unionsgewässern sowie für Fischereifahrzeuge der Union in bestimmten Nicht-Unionsgewässern

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 29 vom 31. Januar 2019
  )

Auf Seite 71, Anhang IA, Fußnote 1 zu Tabelle 2 (Art: Rochen, Gebiet: Unionsgewässer von 2a und 4 (SRX/2AC4-C)):

Anstatt:

„Fänge von Blondrochen (Raja brachyura) in den Unionsgewässern von 4 (RJH/*04-C.), Kuckucksrochen (Leucoraja naevus) (RJN/*2AC4-C), Nagelrochen (Raja clavata) (RJC/*2AC4-C) und Fleckrochen (Raja montagui) (RJM/*2AC4-C) sind getrennt zu melden.“

muss es heißen:

„Fänge von Blondrochen (Raja brachyura) in den Unionsgewässern von 4 (RJH/04-C.), Kuckucksrochen (Leucoraja naevus) (RJN/2AC4-C), Nagelrochen (Raja clavata) (RJC/2AC4-C) und Fleckrochen (Raja montagui) (RJM/2AC4-C) sind getrennt zu melden.“

---