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

Calendar No. 313 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2570 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 17, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AUGUST 1, 2007 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 301 Boardwalk Drive in Fort Collins, Colorado, as the ‘‘Dr. Karl E. Carson 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. DR. KARL E. CARSON POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

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

5 Postal Service located at 301 Boardwalk Drive in Fort 

6 Collins, Colorado, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Dr. Karl E. Carson Post Office Building’’. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2570 RS

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 ‘‘Dr. Karl E. Carson 

5 Post Office Building’’. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS

bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Calendar No. 313 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2570 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postson Post Office Building’’. Fort Collins, Colorado, as the ‘‘Dr. Karl E. Car- al Service located at 301 Boardwalk Drive in 

AUGUST 1, 2007 

Reported without amendment 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
§ 21.5834 Discontinuance dates: General. ( a ) *Educational assistance.* Although educational assistance is paid only once in a term, quarter, or semester, VA may discontinue it under the circumstances stated in § 21.5835. The discontinuance may cause an overpayment. (See also § 21.5838.) If the individual dies during an enrollment period, the provisions of § 21.5835(a) will apply, even if other types of discontinuances are involved. In all other cases where more than one type of reduction or discontinuance is involved, the earliest date found in § 21.5835 will control. (Authority: 10 U.S.C. 2143)
( b ) *Subsistence allowance.* The effective date of a reduction or discontinuance of subsistence allowance will be as specified in § 21.5835. If more than one type of discontinuance is involved, the earliest date will control.
(Authority: 10 U.S.C. 2144)
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 4, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6084-6085]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2351]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

January 29, 2009.
    The Department of the Treasury will submit the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or 
after the date of publication of this notice. Copies of the 
submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance 
Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should 
be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department 
Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, and 1750 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
    Dates: Written comments should be received on or before March 6, 
2009 to be assured of consideration.

[[Page 6085]]

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: 1545-1685.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: REG-103735-00-REG-155303-03 (Final) Tax Shelter Disclosure 
Statements.
    Description: These regulations provide guidance on the filing 
requirement under section 6011 for certain corporate taxpayers engaged 
in transactions producing tax savings in excess of certain dollar 
thresholds.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for-profits.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1 hour.

    OMB Number: 1545-1992.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: REG-146459-05-TD 9324 (Final) Designated Roth Contributions 
Under Section 402A.
    Description: The proposed regulations set forth the rules for 
taxation of distributions from Designated Roth Accounts which are a 
part of a 401(k) plan or 403(b) plan.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for-profits.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 828,000 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Glenn P. Kirkland (202) 622-3428, Internal 
Revenue Service, Room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC 20224.
    OMB Reviewer: Nicholas A. Fraser (202) 395-5887, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.

Celina Elphage,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-2351 Filed 2-3-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2141 

To allow small public water systems to request an exemption from the requirements of any national primary drinking water regulation for a naturally 

occurring contaminant, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 3, 2007 

Mr. CONAWAY (for himself, Mr. FLAKE, and Mr. SIMPSON) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To allow small public water systems to request an exemption 

from the requirements of any national primary drinking 

water regulation for a naturally occurring contaminant, 

and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Community Op5 tions for Regulatory Equity Act of 2007’’. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2141 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FOR NONPROFIT SMALL PUBLIC 

2 WATER SYSTEMS RESPECTING NATURALLY 

3 OCCURRING CONTAMINANTS. 

4 The Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et 

5 seq.) is amended by inserting after section 1416 the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘EXEMPTION FOR NONPROFIT SMALL PUBLIC WATER

8 SYSTEMS RESPECTING NATURALLY OCCURRING CON9 TAMINANTS

10 ‘‘SEC. 1416A. (a) EXEMPTION.—A State exercising 

11 primary enforcement responsibility for public water sys12 tems under section 1413 (or the Administrator in any non13 primacy State) shall exempt any nonprofit small public 

14 water system that submits a request in accordance with 

15 subsection (b) from the requirements of any national pri16 mary drinking water regulation for a naturally occurring 

17 contaminant. 

18 ‘‘(b) REQUEST.—To seek an exemption under this 

19 section, a nonprofit small public water system— 

20 ‘‘(1) shall submit a written request to the State 

21 exercising primary enforcement responsibility with 

22 respect to the system (or the Administrator in any 

23 nonprimacy State); and 

24 ‘‘(2) shall include in such request a finding 

25 under subsection (c). 

26 ‘‘(c) ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY.— 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2141 IH

1 ‘‘(1) FINDING.—To seek an exemption under 

2 this section, a nonprofit small public water system 

3 must find that compliance by the system with the 

4 national primary drinking water regulation involved 

5 is not economically feasible. 

6 ‘‘(2) NO REVIEW.—A finding by a nonprofit 

7 small public water system under this subsection shall 

8 not be subject to judicial or administrative review. 

9 ‘‘(d) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

10 ‘‘(1) The term ‘naturally occurring contami11 nant’ includes arsenic, radon, radium, uranium, and 

12 any contaminant that is a disinfection byproduct (in13 cluding bromate, chlorite, haloacetic acids, and total 

14 trihalomethanes). 

15 ‘‘(2) The term ‘small public water system’ 

16 means a public water system serving 10,000 or 

17 fewer persons.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
GUALBERTO SANCHEZQUINTANA,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-2083

_____________________________/

Opinion filed June 6, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Walton County.

Kelvin C. Wells, Judge.

Gualberto Sanchez-Quintana, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. Fla. R. App. P. 9.420(a)(2); see Rivera v. Dep’t of Health, 177 

So. 3d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).

LEWIS, BILBREY, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tofutti Brands Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending July 2, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven
Kass, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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/Steven Kass*
--------------
Steven Kass
Chief Financial Officer

Date: March 21, 2006



* The originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
Waiver Request Support Document

82

Attachment 7

2012 Amendments to OBD II Monitoring Requirements That Clarify 

Pre-Existing Requirements 

Amendments to 1968.2

A. Section (c): Definitions.

1. “Calculated load value”

2. “Fueled engine operation”

3. “Hybrid vehicle”

4. “Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles”

5. “Propulsion system active”

B. Section (d): General Requirements

1. Section (d)(2.5.2)(B)(iii): Erasing a Permanent Fault Code. 

2. Section (d)(4.3.2)(D): Denominator Specifications

C. Section (g): Standardization Requirements

1. Section (g)(1.4.1): Reference Documents

2. Section (g)(4.2.6): Required Emission Related Functions
### No. 06-15-00069-CR: 

### IN The

### Sixth Court of Ap,pclals Texarkana, Texas
Temika Charnet,te Owen,s,, Ap.pe7lar:-t,



### v. THE STATE OF 'TEXAS, Ag:l.peJ'7ee.
MOTION TO WTTHDR;AW PURSrd,AhIIT 1:O AIIDERS v. CALIFORNIA, 386 U.S. ?38 (L9671

TO THE HONORABLE SIXTH COURTOF APPEALS: NOW COMES JEFF

### T. JACKSONT

### courtsol for Appellant Temika Charnette Owens, and hereby moves 

### to withdraw from 

### representation of Appellant pursuant to Anders v. 

### CaJ-ifornia, 386 U.S. 738 (1961). In support of this mof i nn

### - r-orrnsel shows

### as follows: ILIV UMrt VVUr

### I.

Counsel- has

### thoroughly reviewed the: r:ecord on appeal, 

### and,

### for these reasons, 

### is thoroughly 

### f,amiliar with the

II. Counsel 

### has, in the exercise of his professional judgment, 

### determinedthat the j-nstant case presents no 

### non-frivolous issues for appeal, and, .in accordance 

### with the Supreme

### Court's decision tn Anders 

### v. Cal,ifornia, 386 

### U.S. 738 (L967), now

### so advises the court and requests permissj-on 

### to wj-thdraw. Anders, id. at 1411

. 

### III. In accordance with Anders 

### I c()unsel has, contemporaneously 

### with this motion, f

### il-ed a brief outlining all issues which might arquably support an 

### appeal and explaining whythose issues are meriLless.
Anlj^r a I/1 z'llvvL v ,

### rv.

Counsel- has furnished f he Anncl l arls w-Lth a copy of 

### thus apprising said brief, and a copy of this motion, appeall-ant

### of counsel, 

### s actions. V. Having determined 

### that the instant. trppeal 

### is wholl_y frivol-ous

### / and having complied with the brie f

### inq and 

### notice requirements 

### of Anders

### v. Cal-if<>r.nia, counsef now 

### requests that he be al-lowed 

### to withcir,aw, 

### pursuant to Anders.

WHEREFORE, PREMTSES coNSTDERED, 

### it j-s prayed that the court grant counsel-'s request and al-l-ow 

### counsel t.o 

### withdraw from this case, FUrsuant to Anders v. 

### CaLifornia,3B6 U.S. 738 (1961).

UEII qp.nT T No Jackson 2406991 6 Resnar-f frrl'l rr qrrhmi tf arl

vu!sf rj ul/vlll-! uugu, 

# fukt-.736-A Hwy259 N. 

### Kilgore, TX '75662 Phone

### : 903- 6:t4-|3362 

### Fax: BIl- BU7-4333 Af f orn1\l fnr lnnaT 7=nf ttLevLrlvJ LvL flP-ye-L_Lo.ttL / Temika Cha:"rne>tte Owens

CERTIFICATE OE SERVIC]q 

### Pursuant

### to Tex. 

### R. App. 

### P. 9.5, I certify that on 

### August IJ

### , 2015, 

### a copy 

### of this motion wers 

### mailed via 

### first cl-ass 

### U.S. mail-, postage 

### prepaid,

### to the fol_l_owing: 

### Micheal ,Jimerson: Rusk County D.A. SBOT:00189406 115 

### N. Main St. Rd.Henderson, TX 75652 Temiker Owens: San Serba 

### Unit TDCJlrro. 019991 628 206 

### S. W;rl-l-ace Creek San SeLba,TX 168"71



### Jeff T. Jackson
#### William Haslam et al., Respondents, *v.*Samuel I. Abrahamson, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs rendered in the Municipal Court of the city of Eew Tork, second district, borough of Manhattan.

*772Simon O. Pollock, for appellant.

Joseph A. Kent, for respondents.

*Per*Curiam.

The defendant wholly failed to observe the requirements of sections 1429 and 3029, Code Oivil Procedure, as to posting notices of the sale.

The judgment is, therefore, right and should be affirmed, with costs.

Present: Tbuax, P. J., Soott and Dugbo, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
|   | 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. |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                         |                               |                                                                                                                                                                |
|------------------------------|------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                         | IR      BIOSCIENCES HOLDINGS, INC. |
|                         |                               |                                                                                                                                                                |
| Date:      November 16, 2009 | By:                      | /s/ Michael      K.      Wilhelm                      |
|                         | Chief      Executive Officer       |
|                         |                               |
#### Howard E. White, as Trustee, etc., of Rupert Whitehead, Bankrupt, Appellant, *v.*Edward O’Brien et al., Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, seventh district, borough of Manhattan.

Riteh, Woodford, Bovee & Wallace, for appellant.

M. D. Steuer, for respondents.

*Per Ouriam.*

As between Whitehead and the defendants, the note in question had its inception at the time of its delivery to Whitehead, for then the consideration was paid and the note delivered. If there was any usury it must have been at this time. Whitehead cannot be heard to say that he did not at this time have authority to represent the payee, for he represented himself to the defendants as having this authority, and, as between him and the defendants, is bound by his representation. The plaintiff as representative of Whitehead has no right beyond such as his principal has. It seems further that the $200 were advanced by Mr. Weil to Whitehead upon the security of the note. If this is so Whitehead was the owner of the note at all times, subject to Mr. Weil’s rights upon the security.

The judgment is affirmed.

Present: Tbuax, P. J., Scott and Dugbo, JJ.

Judgment affirmed.
#### § 4.124 Neuralgia, cranial or peripheral.

Neuralgia, cranial or peripheral, characterized usually by a dull and intermittent pain, of typical distribution so as to identify the nerve, is to be rated on the same scale, with a maximum equal to moderate incomplete paralysis. See nerve involved for diagnostic code number and rating. Tic douloureux, or trifacial neuralgia, may be rated up to complete paralysis of the affected nerve.
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



Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as Chief Executive Officer of Apollo Debt Solutions BDC (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge:



1. the Company’s Form 10-K for the annual ended December 31, 2021 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 Company’s Form 10-K for the annual ended December 31, 2021 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated: March 30, 2022

|    |                        
|--- | -----------------------
|By: | /s/ Earl Hunt          
|    | Earl Hunt              
|    | Chief Executive Officer







---
| 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. |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:       November 14, 2008 | By:    | /s/ Brian      M. Carter                            |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                               |   | Brian      M. Carter                                     |   |
|                               |   | Chief      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                               |   |                                                     |   |
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 19

- 00108

- CR

IN RE John Michael POPE

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 6, 2019

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

Relator filed a pro se “Writ of Mandamus Compelling District Court to Act on Filed

Motions and Set for Trial ,” in which he complains the trial court has failed to rule on his pro se

motions, including a motion for sp eedy trial. Relator is represented by trial counsel below;

therefore, he is not entitled to hybrid representation. Patrick v. State , 906 S.W.2d 481, 498 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1995). The absence of a right to hybrid representation means relator’s pro se

manda mus petition will be treated as presenting nothing for this court’s review. See id. ; see also

Gray v. Shipley , 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding).

Accordingly, relator’s pro se petition for writ of mandamus is deni ed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Do not publish

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2018CR12867, styled The State of Texas v. John Michael Pope, Jr. , pending

in the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Lo ri I. Valenzuela presiding.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ENRIQUE MARTINEZ,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 12

- 00320

- CR

Appeal from the

41 st District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20120D02642 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We further order this decision be certified below

for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, J., and Larsen, J. (Se nior Judge)

Larsen, J. (Senior Judge), sitting by assignment
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2012-0192

Directorate Identifier: 2011NM225AD

A330-28-3113 --- 7/19/11

A340-28-4129 --- 7/19/11

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008