alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
September 27, 2002


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W
Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         The certification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities
and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code. This certification is not to
be deemed filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and does not
constitute a part of the Annual Report on Form 10-K (the "Report) accompanying
this letter.

         Gregory M. Evans, the Chief Executive Officer and Henry J. Salvo, Jr.,
the Chief Financial Officer of The Robert Mondavi Corporation, each certifies
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 Robert Mondavi Corporation.


                             /s/ GREGORY M. EVANS
                             -------------------------------------------
                             Gregory M. Evans
                             Chief Executive Officer


                              /s/ HENRY J. SALVO, JR.
                              -------------------------------------------
                              Henry J. Salvo, Jr.
                              Chief Financial Officer


<PAGE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3528 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3528

 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize the use 
  of funds made available for nonpoint source management programs for 
projects and activities relating to the development and implementation 
of phase II of the storm water program of the Environmental Protection 
                                Agency.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 19, 2003

  Mrs. Lowey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize the use 
  of funds made available for nonpoint source management programs for 
projects and activities relating to the development and implementation 
of phase II of the storm water program of the Environmental Protection 
                                Agency.

    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 ``Storm Water Abatement Act''.

SEC. 2. PHASE II STORM WATER PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT.

    Section 319(h) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1329(h)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(13) Phase ii storm water implementation.--A State may 
        use funds from a grant provided under this subsection--
                    ``(A) to carry out a project or activity relating 
                to the development or implementation of phase II of the 
                storm water program of the Environmental Protection 
                Agency established by the final rule entitled `National 
                Pollutant Discharge Elimination System--Regulations for 
                Revision of the Water Pollution Control Program 
                Addressing Storm Water Discharges', promulgated by the 
                Administrator on December 8, 1999 (64 Fed. Reg. 68722); 
                and
                    ``(B) to implement a management program in a 
                geographic jurisdiction for phase II of the program 
                described in subparagraph (A).''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
   
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1995
<CASH>                                    $   487,056
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                               2,706,845
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            3,310,228
<PP&E>                                     12,802,928
<DEPRECIATION>                              5,696,882
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             10,595,551
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       4,950,420
<BONDS>                                     1,880,755
<COMMON>                                    3,005,833
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                   341,670
<OTHER-SE>                                (2,163,171)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               10,595,551
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            2,003,809
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               1,822,072
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              104,677
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                77,060
<INCOME-TAX>                                  117,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (40,640)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (40,640)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        
    

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3017 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3017

 To amend title 49, United States Code, to clarify certain Buy America 
                              provisions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 5, 2003

Ms. Kilpatrick introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 49, United States Code, to clarify certain Buy America 
                              provisions.

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

SECTION 1. BUY AMERICA.

    Section 5323(j) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by adding at the end of paragraph (1) the following: 
        ``The term `manufactured goods' as used in this paragraph means 
        each individual item specified in each line item of a 
        procurement. If the individual items to be procured are listed 
        in the bill of materials and specifications rather than a line 
        item, the term `manufactured goods' shall apply to each such 
        item. The definition of `manufactured goods' shall not be 
        applicable to the procurement of rolling stock as set forth in 
        paragraph (2)(C).'';
            (2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (7) as 
        paragraphs (4) through (8), respectively;
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
            ``(3) When issuing a waiver based upon a public interest 
        determination under paragraph (2)(A), the Secretary shall 
        produce a detailed written justification as to why the waiver 
        is in the public interest. The Secretary shall publish this 
        justification in the Federal Register and provide the public a 
        reasonable period for notice and comment.''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(9) Application of waivers.--The Secretary may grant a 
        waiver under paragraph (2) for a microprocessor, but not for 
        microcomputer equipment. For purposes of this paragraph 
        `microprocessor' means a computer processor on a microchip.
            ``(10) Administrative review.--A party adversely affected 
        by an agency action under this subsection shall have the right 
        to seek review under section 702 of the Administrative 
        Procedure Act, title 5, United States Code.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### CHAPPELL *v.*PHILLIPS.

Accord and satisfaction — variance—payment to payee before endorsement available, if endorsee have notice.

Under a special plea of accord, &c. with *George*Emory, evidence is inadmissible of an accord with *John*Emory, but an accord and satisfaction may be given in evidence under non assumpsit.

Payment made on a negotiable note before due or negotiated, will avail, if the endorsee had notice of it when he took it; but without such notice, the maker loses, because he neglects the endorsement of the payment, and enables the holder to pass it away at Its face.

Assumpsit on a note by Phillips to Beach or *bearer,*payable the 7th April, 1831, with the common counts.

Pleas: 1. Non assumpsit, with notice of setoif. 2. Accord and satisfaction by a horse, delivered to *Geo. Emory, agent.*

The plaintiff read the note endorsed to the plaintiff, and proved that he received it in 1830, in payment of land, and rested.

The defendant offered to prove an arrangement, made with *John Emory,*about horses, &c.

*373*Newton,*for the plaintiff,

objected; the plea is, that it was made with *George Emory.*

*Giddings,*contra.

*Hand*and *Newton,*to jury, for the plaintiff.

*Wade*and *Giddings,*contra.

Lane, J.

Under the special plea, the evidence is inadmissible; but if the counsel will state, that at the time the plaintiff took the note, he knew of this agreement, it may be admitted under the general issue.

Evidence was then offered to show that the plaintiff only held the note as agent of Beach, and as collateral security, and when he presented it, he was told of the contract, and sáid, if he had known it, he should not have come down.

Lane, J.

to jury. If the suit were between Beach and Phillips, and the property was tendered to the agent, according to the agreement, and was accepted or retained for him, that will discharge the defendant. But, the question is, whether the plaintiff was affected by this movement ? The note was negotiable, and endorsed to the plaintiff before due. Any payment made before the endorsement, is good for so much, if- the endorsee, when he took the note had notice; if not, he took the note unincumbered by such payment, because the maker should have seen that the payment was endorsed, and not have left the note without endorsement in the hands of the holder, to be passed away as if all was due.

Yerdict and judgment for the plaintiff.
PUBLIC LAW 110–68—AUG. 9, 2007 121 STAT. 571 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2127: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007): 

June 18, considered and passed House. 

Aug. 3, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–68 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 408 West 

6th Street in Chelsea, Oklahoma, as the ‘‘Clem Rogers McSpadden Post Office 

Building’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. CLEM ROGERS MCSPADDEN POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

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

Service located at 408 West 6th Street in Chelsea, Oklahoma, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Clem Rogers McSpadden 

Post Office Building’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Clem Rogers McSpadden Post Office Building’’. 

Approved August 9, 2007. 

Aug. 9, 2007 

[H.R. 2127]
42439.

#### MILES v. HARRISON, by Next Friend, et al.

Per Guriam.

The Supreme Court on certiorari *(Miles v. Harrison,*223 Ga. 352), having reversed the judgment of this court *(Miles v. Harrison,*115 Ga. App. 143 (154 SE2d 377)), the judgment of this court is vacated and the judgment of the Supreme Court is made the judgment of this court. Accordingly, the petition as strictly construed against the pleader failed to state a cause of action against the defendant Miles, and the trial judge erred in overruling the general demurrer of this defendant to the petition.

*822
      *Bell, P. J., Jordan and Eberhardt, JJ., concur.*

Decided June 6, 1967.

*Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Frank Love, Jr., K. W. Gilchrist,*for appellant.

*Raymond M. Reed, D. B. Howe, Berl T. Tate,*for appellees.

*Judgment reversed.*
§ 616.6300 Leasing policies, procedures, and underwriting standards. The board of each institution engaged in lease underwriting must adopt a written policy (or policies). Management, at the direction of the board, must develop procedures that reflect lease practices that control risk and comply with all applicable laws and regulations. Any leasing activity must comply with the lending policies and loan underwriting requirements in § 614.4150 of this chapter. An institution engaged in the making, buying, or syndicating of leases also must adopt written policies and procedures that address the additional risks associated with leasing. Written policies and procedures must address the following, if applicable: ( a ) Appropriateness of the lease amount, purpose, and terms and conditions, including the residual value established at the inception of the lease;
( b ) Process for estimating the leased asset's market value during the lease term;
( c ) Types of equipment and facilities the institution will lease;
( d ) Remarketing of leased property and associated risks;
( e ) Property tax and sales tax reporting;
( f ) Title and ownership of leased assets;
( g ) Title and licensing for motor vehicles;
( h ) Liability associated with ownership, including any environmental hazards or risks;
( i ) Insurance requirements for both the lessor and lessee;
( j ) Classification of leases in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; and
( k ) Tax treatment of lease transactions and associated risks.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

TIMOTHY NEAL McKINLEY, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

TRACY McCOLLUM, Warden, 

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 17-6097 

(D.C. No. 5:16-CV-00126-R) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

 

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before PHILLIPS, McKAY, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. 

 Petitioner, a pro se state prisoner, seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the 

district court’s denial of his § 2254 petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). In his habeas 

petition, Petitioner raised numerous issues relating to the sufficiency of the evidence, the 

representation he received at trial and on appeal, and several allegedly prejudicial 

evidentiary determinations. The district court’s twelve-page order, which adopted much 

of the magistrate judge’s thirty-five-page second supplemental report and 

recommendation, considered each of the asserted issues and determined that Petitioner 

was not entitled to federal habeas relief on any of these grounds. 

 

 * This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of 

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its 

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

February 2, 2018

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

 To obtain a certificate of appealability, Petitioner must make “a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). In order to meet 

this burden, he must demonstrate “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for 

that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or 

that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

 After carefully reviewing Petitioner’s brief, the district court’s disposition, the 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and the record on appeal, including the 

transcripts, rulings, and other records from the state court proceedings, we see no error in 

the district court’s exhaustive order, to which we have nothing to add. We accordingly 

conclude that reasonable jurists would not debate the district court’s denial of Petitioner’s 

claims. For substantially the reasons given by the district court and magistrate judge, we 

DENY Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal. 

We GRANT Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Entered for the Court 

 

 Monroe G. McKay 

 Circuit Judge
§ 367.3 Appropriate officials. ( a ) The *Ethics Counselor* is the Executive Secretary of the FDIC. The Ethics Counselor shall act as the official responsible for rendering suspension and exclusion decisions under this part. In addition to taking suspension and/or exclusion action under this part, the Ethics Counselor has authority to terminate exclusion and suspension proceedings. As used in this part, “Ethics Counselor” includes any official designated by the Ethics Counselor to act on the Ethics Counselor's behalf.
( b ) The *Corporation Ethics Committee* is the Committee appointed by the Chairman of the FDIC, or Chairman's designee, which provides review of any suspension or exclusion decision rendered by the Ethics Counselor that is appealed by a contractor who has been suspended and/or excluded from FDIC contracting.
( c ) Information concerning the possible existence of any cause for suspension or exclusion shall be reported to the Office of the Executive Secretary (Ethics Section). This part does not modify the responsibility to report allegations of fraud, waste and abuse, including but not limited to criminal violations, to the Office of Inspector General.
59–008 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 110–286 

WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII 

WITH RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON RULES 

AUGUST 1, 2007 (legislative day of JULY 31, 2007).—Referred to the House Calendar 

and ordered to be printed 

Mrs. SLAUGHTER, from the Committee on Rules, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H. Res. 595] 

The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration House 

Resolution 595, by a record vote of 8 to 4, report the same to the 

House with the recommendation that the resolution be adopted. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

The resolution waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a twothirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from 

the Rules Committee) against certain resolutions reported from the 

Rules Committee. The rule applies the waiver to any resolutions 

reported on the legislative day of August 1, 2007, providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3161) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 

Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 

2008, and for other purposes. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

The results of each record vote on an amendment or motion to 

report, together with the names of those voting for and against, are 

printed below: 

Rules Committee record vote No. 273 

Date: August 1, 2007 (legislative day of July 31, 2007). 

Measure: H. Res. 3161 Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of 

rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules. 

Motion by: Mr. McGovern. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
2 

Summary of motion: To report the rule. 

Results: Adopted 8–4. 

Vote by Members: McGovern—Yea; Hastings (FL)—Yea; 

Cardoza—Yea; Welch—Yea; Castor—Yea; Arcuri—Yea; Sutton— Yea; Dreier—Nay; Diaz-Balart—Nay; Hastings (WA)—Nay; Sessions—Nay; Slaughter—Yea. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
# Gazzetta ufficiale C 363I/9 se

| | ISSN 1977-0944 |
| --- | --- |
| Gazzetta ufficiale
  dell’Unione europea | C 363I |
| | |
| Edizione in lingua italiana | Comunicazioni e informazioni | 64° anno9 settembre 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0944

Gazzetta ufficiale

dell’Unione europea

C 363I

Edizione in lingua italiana

Comunicazioni e informazioni

64° anno9 settembre 2021

---

| Sommario | pagina |
| --- | --- |
| | Rettifiche |
| 2021/C 363 I/01 | Rettifica dell'invito a presentare candidature per la selezione del controllore delle garanzie procedurali nell'ambito delle indagini svolte dall'Ufficio europeo per la lotta antifrode (OLAF) — COM/2021/20062 ( GU C 279 A del 13.7.2021 ) | 1 |

Sommario

pagina

Rettifiche

2021/C 363 I/01

Rettifica dell'invito a presentare candidature per la selezione del controllore delle garanzie procedurali nell'ambito delle indagini svolte dall'Ufficio europeo per la lotta antifrode (OLAF) — COM/2021/20062 ( GU C 279 A del 13.7.2021 )

( GU C 279 A del 13.7.2021 )

1

---

| IT | |
| --- | --- |

IT

---

Rettifiche

| 9.9.2021 | IT | Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea | CI 363/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2021

IT

Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea

CI 363/1

---

Rettifica dell'invito a presentare candidature per la selezione del controllore delle garanzie procedurali nell'ambito delle indagini svolte dall'Ufficio europeo per la lotta antifrode (OLAF) — COM/2021/20062

(
  Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea C 279 A del 13 luglio 2021
  )

(2021/C 363 I/01)

Pagina 3, punto 4., Termine per la presentazione delle candidature, primo comma:

| anziché: | «Il termine ultimo per l'iscrizione è il 9 settembre 2021. Le iscrizioni online sono chiuse alle ore 12.00 (mezzogiorno), ora di Bruxelles.», |
| --- | --- |

anziché:

«Il termine ultimo per l'iscrizione è il 9 settembre 2021. Le iscrizioni online sono chiuse alle ore 12.00 (mezzogiorno), ora di Bruxelles.»,

| leggasi: | «Il termine ultimo per l'iscrizione è il 23 settembre 2021. Le iscrizioni online sono chiuse alle ore 12.00 (mezzogiorno), ora di Bruxelles.». |
| --- | --- |

leggasi:

leggasi

«Il termine ultimo per l'iscrizione è il 23 settembre 2021. Le iscrizioni online sono chiuse alle ore 12.00 (mezzogiorno), ora di Bruxelles.».

---